Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 175

Thread: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan

  1. #131
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,851

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Quite the opposite, as this proves the validity of the original claim: the Romney tax cut can not, in and of itself, be revenue neutral.

    If you actual read the article, they blast the assumption that TPC said there would be "no economic growth". They do not refute the TPC facts; only TPC not including some hypothetical revenue growth from an improved economy. In argument, they MUST have economic growth to have a chance of being revenue neutral. In other words, the Cons are trying to once again con us with the notion that tax cuts, by themselves, generate economic growth. This remains, at very best, an unproven suggestion... Moreover, saying the the government must take the risk that the tax cut will leave them "revenue neutral" is an absurd investment proposition... why would we go from a known tax base to an unknown tax base, where the upside is where we are today? In essence, the cons want to once again cut taxes first on the HOPE it gets paid back later.

    Sorry, this is a bill of goods that anyone paying attention or with half a brain can see right through. The fact of the matter is that the tax cut WILL cost the treasury known revenue (and therefore increase deficits, if not offset by other tax increases) and MAY be revenue neutral IF there is economic growth as a result.

    ... sorry, we have been there and done that. In the words of that snake oil salesman ".... fooled me once,........ya won't get fooled again."
    Okay...As Rosen said, plausible growth is in the eye of the beholder. Now you, being anti-Romney, are certainly free to bet that there will be zero growth in order to support your opposition to him. I won't take that bet, especially given the other parts of Romney's plan that are designed to foster increased economic growth.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  2. #132
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    The weekly standard is a right wing controlled magazine.



    Who's William Kristol? Who's Fred Barnes?


    And there's no copy of the email. Sounds like a pundit lie. Smells like it. Is reacted by others like it.

    Where's the email?
    It is a conservative magazine, and Kristol and Barnes are obviously conservative. But the Weekly Standard is also a respected and relatively widely read publication. Accusing them of literally fabricating emails makes as much sense as accusing The New Republic of doing something similar. Which is to say not at all.

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Quite the opposite, as this proves the validity of the original claim: the Romney tax cut can not, in and of itself, be revenue neutral.

    If you actual read the article, they blast the assumption that TPC said there would be "no economic growth". They do not refute the TPC facts; only TPC not including some hypothetical revenue growth from an improved economy. In argument, they MUST have economic growth to have a chance of being revenue neutral. In other words, the Cons are trying to once again con us with the notion that tax cuts, by themselves, generate economic growth. This remains, at very best, an unproven suggestion... Moreover, saying the the government must take the risk that the tax cut will leave them "revenue neutral" is an absurd investment proposition... why would we go from a known tax base to an unknown tax base, where the upside is where we are today? In essence, the cons want to once again cut taxes first on the HOPE it gets paid back later.

    Sorry, this is a bill of goods that anyone paying attention or with half a brain can see right through. The fact of the matter is that the tax cut WILL cost the treasury known revenue (and therefore increase deficits, if not offset by other tax increases) and MAY be revenue neutral IF there is economic growth as a result.

    ... sorry, we have been there and done that. In the words of that snake oil salesman ".... fooled me once,........ya won't get fooled again."
    Except as has been repeated time and time again, Romneys plan is to eliminate tax deductions and credits equal to the estimated loss in revenue due to lowering tax rates. Which would make it revenue neutral. The problem with all of the estimates about Romneys plan is they make assumptions as to which deductions will be eliminated. Thus any study of Romneys plan is a guess. Its a valid criticism to say his plan isnt detailed enough to know what it would really do.

    But then, since the President cant actually change the tax code, its kind of dumb to assume hes going to do anything. Congress will write the bill, not Romney.

  4. #134
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,098

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Okay...As Rosen said, plausible growth is in the eye of the beholder. Now you, being anti-Romney, are certainly free to bet that there will be zero growth in order to support your opposition to him. I won't take that bet, especially given the other parts of Romney's plan that are designed to foster increased economic growth.
    You are missing the point: it is NOT revenue neutral in and of itself, which is the TPC claim. The OP counterclaim was that the TPC study was wrong; it is not.

  5. #135
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,098

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Except as has been repeated time and time again, Romneys plan is to eliminate tax deductions and credits equal to the estimated loss in revenue due to lowering tax rates. Which would make it revenue neutral. The problem with all of the estimates about Romneys plan is they make assumptions as to which deductions will be eliminated. Thus any study of Romneys plan is a guess. Its a valid criticism to say his plan isnt detailed enough to know what it would really do.

    But then, since the President cant actually change the tax code, its kind of dumb to assume hes going to do anything. Congress will write the bill, not Romney.
    I suggest you read the TPC study.

    Tax Reform

    First, there are not enough deductions that can be eliminated to make a 20% across tax cut revenue neutral, especially if cap gains is off the table, which Romney said it was. There is a $86B shortfall if you eliminate all

    Second, even if you eliminated all deductions, the deduction value is disproportionately beneficial to middle, upper middle and lower upper income wage earners. Eliminating them would effect a shift in burden from the very wealthy to the middle, which is pretty much having the middle pay for tax cuts for the most wealthy, which is the original assertion.

    This "passing it off to congress" is deliberately vague and designed to obfuscate the issue. Presidents generally propose workable plans to congress, which then get written by congress. Saying I want to cut taxes by 20%, you make it work congress, is not workable, if impossible. The fact is, as the TPC study and numerous others said it can not be done. The only other tangible approach would be to eliminate all deductions AND effect a tax cut of less than 20%.

    Mitt Romney's Tax Proposals: Understanding the Debate | Brookings Institution

    I appreciate the fact that everyone loves tax cuts. We would all like to have diet of nothing but ice cream as well. Santa Mitt and his #1 elf Paul are certainly whispering sweet nothings in your ear.... they are promising you a life of utopia to lure you up to their hotel room where..... enough of this metaphor, you get the picture.

  6. #136
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,851

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    You are missing the point: it is NOT revenue neutral in and of itself, which is the TPC claim. The OP counterclaim was that the TPC study was wrong; it is not.
    Dude...I don't think even Obama would make the bet that there will be zero growth and that we should, therefore, dismiss Romney's plan because of it. No, Obama's method is to misrepresent another's finding for his own purposes.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  7. #137
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    No, Obama's method is to misrepresent another's finding for his own purposes.
    Exactly. That's the Chicago way.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #138
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    Exactly. That's the Chicago way.
    Maybe you can locate the email where the President allegedly said these things, because until it shows up, this article is just political propaganda.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  9. #139
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,851

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    Maybe you can locate the email where the President allegedly said these things, because until it shows up, this article is just political propaganda.
    Yawn...

    Still harping on that "email" thing, I see.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  10. #140
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,098

    Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Dude...I don't think even Obama would make the bet that there will be zero growth and that we should, therefore, dismiss Romney's plan because of it. No, Obama's method is to misrepresent another's finding for his own purposes.
    The idea that you pay for a tax cut out of future growth is the Bush II tax cut of 2001/03... it is a big reason we are in this mess. The very reason the Romney plan is being challenged is because it was represented as being funded out of tax restructuring; not some hypothetical. The inherent lie, however, is that it needs the hypothetical to work; it CANNOT be funded solely from tax restructuring.

    The indictment is that the Romney taxcut is just a re-packaged Bush taxcut; a double down on failed economic policies. That is all the Dems are saying and NO ONE has been able to refute it.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •