• 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.

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

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

The Princeton Professor -- Rosen -- is a right wing tool (he served under Shrub) who can only make Romney's tax plan add up by classifying people with income over $100k as wealthy and thus taking away their deductions. Of course the right attacks Obama when he calls people with 250% more income wealthy, so this isn't much of a defense.
This is patently false. Under his analysis, even the lowest estimate of growth would provide an 80 billion dollar surplus under your assumptions - that's not revenue neutral.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Politifact said:
Rosen found that when all possible deductions are eliminated, from home mortgages to charitable giving to health insurance benefits, it means that increased revenues can balance out the money lost through tax cuts.
It's mind-boggling how stupid the so-called "fact checkers" can be... even with Rosen providing a step-by-step explanation of basic arithmetic they come to this inane conclusion. There's a reason these guys decided to go into writing.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

In reality, what he did was apply the Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal funding of abortion to the ACA. How you get that this is not enforcing the laws is inexplicable.

WTF are you rambling on about? Obama did in fact, a few times in his term, tell the Justice department not to enforce certain laws. I'm not talking about that amendment or the ACA. Quit trying to divert this thread. The shill adam is doing just fine diverting away from the reality that Obama chose a study by an economist to use against Romney, and the whole time, Obama has been lying about it. That's the point of the thread.

It's mind-boggling how stupid the so-called "fact checkers" can be... even with Rosen providing a step-by-step explanation of basic arithmetic they come to this inane conclusion. There's a reason these guys decided to go into writing.

It's because they have their partisan hack glasses on just like adam...
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Quote Originally Posted by Politifact
Rosen found that when all possible deductions are eliminated, from home mortgages to charitable giving to health insurance benefits, it means that increased revenues can balance out the money lost through tax cuts.

It's mind-boggling how stupid the so-called "fact checkers" can be... even with Rosen providing a step-by-step explanation of basic arithmetic they come to this inane conclusion. There's a reason these guys decided to go into writing.


from the Rosen paper summation and footnotes on the last pa

Revenue raised from base broadening
Itemized deductions plus tax exempt interest 2/

2/ Includes medical expense deduction, charitable deduction, home mortgage deduction, state and local taxes paid deduction plus tax-exempt interest.


I read that as Prof Rosen stating "base broadening" includes eliminating the deductions listed as he shows a positive figure in the column under the heading of "Itemized deductions"
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

WTF are you rambling on about? Obama did in fact, a few times in his term, tell the Justice department not to enforce certain laws. I'm not talking about that amendment or the ACA. Quit trying to divert this thread. The shill adam is doing just fine diverting away from the reality that Obama chose a study by an economist to use against Romney, and the whole time, Obama has been lying about it. That's the point of the thread.



It's because they have their partisan hack glasses on just like adam...


I get it. Your diversions are acceptable, others are not. Kind of like the double standard that Mitt using an executive order would be acceptable to the right when they cry constantly about Obama doing it.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

I get it. Your diversions are acceptable, others are not. Kind of like the double standard that Mitt using an executive order would be acceptable to the right when they cry constantly about Obama doing it.

Wow, you offer spin and not much else.

Would you like to comment on the point that Obama used a study by an economist and lied about what that study concluded?

Yes, if the right was fine with Romney doing what they bitched about Obama doing, they'd be hypocrites. I don't care which side does it, it's wrong. But the point of mentioning it, was that Obama *has* done it, thus Romney could justify doing the same crap in order to bypass the inability to repeal the ACA.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Wow, you offer spin and not much else.

Would you like to comment on the point that Obama used a study by an economist and lied about what that study concluded?

Yes, if the right was fine with Romney doing what they bitched about Obama doing, they'd be hypocrites. I don't care which side does it, it's wrong. But the point of mentioning it, was that Obama *has* done it, thus Romney could justify doing the same crap in order to bypass the inability to repeal the ACA.


There is disagreement as to whether or not the Obama campaign "lied" about the Rosen study - to say the least. Prof Rosen is now, and has been for sometime, a strong supporter and advocate for economic policies derived from the Hayek/Friedman school of economic thought. A school that hasn't really shown itself to be the most effective in creating economic plans for this nation.

from the Wonkblog at the WaPo
Rosen bases his growth estimates on a study of Romney’s plan done by Rice economist John Diamond. Diamond assumes that Romney’s plan is implemented under conditions of full employment. That’s important because it means that if you eliminate tax breaks for one industry and they have to fire workers, those workers can relatively easily find jobs in another industry. But barring a miraculous labor market recovery in the next few months, that won’t be the situation when Romney takes office. In the current world, wiping out tax breaks for an industry could lead to displaced workers who simply join the ranks of the unemployed, dragging down growth.

But more damaging for Rosen’s case is that Diamond’s study assumes that Romney’s plan is revenue-neutral before you take economic growth into account.* That is, Diamond assumes that the tax cuts have been fully paid for first, and that’s part of why they do so much for growth. Rosen, conversely, is making the case that you don’t need to fully pay for the tax cuts because growth will fill in the gap. So the Diamond-Romney tax plan and the Rosen-Romney tax plan are quite different, and growth estimates that apply to the first don’t necessarily apply to the second.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

There is disagreement as to whether or not the Obama campaign "lied" about the Rosen study - to say the least.

No, Obama pointed at his study and said that the burden would be increased on the middle class. The author of the study came out and said that is not true, that his study did not say that. There is no disagreement. Obama, once again, lied. As do all politicians.
 
Back
Top Bottom