• 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

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard

Don't like the source, but have seen nothing that debunks it... from the author of the study on Romney's tax plan:

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard

Don't like the source, but have seen nothing that debunks it... from the author of the study on Romney's tax plan:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

The Heritage Foundation noted that Obama's references to the "NON PARTISAN" TPC was less than honest as well.

Some of Obunny's ads CITE "THE WHITE HOUSE" or ABC News as sources as well
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard

Don't like the source, but have seen nothing that debunks it... from the author of the study on Romney's tax plan:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Perhaps because unless the GOP takes over both houses of congress there is no way in hell the ACA will be repealed and therefore the taxes associated with it will stand? It would be nice to have Mr. Rosen explain how removing said taxes, which should generate revenue, improves Romney's chances to balance the books. It isn't like his is the only study. I've seen one that ran a "best case" scenario with what we know of Mitt's plan as well as a "likely case" scenario. Both of them showed him adding to the deficit unless he found a significant source of revenue outside what he has described so far.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

It would be nice to have Mr. Rosen explain how removing said taxes, which should generate revenue, improves Romney's chances to balance the books.

The revenue generated via the ACA is LESS than the expenses it puts forth. Pretty easy to understand.

It isn't like his is the only study. I've seen one that ran a "best case" scenario with what we know of Mitt's plan as well as a "likely case" scenario. Both of them showed him adding to the deficit unless he found a significant source of revenue outside what he has described so far.

It's the study that Obama is using as the base for his claim. He is lying about what it will cause. Quit making excuses and diverting.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

I prefer to believe the President than some no name economist.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

I prefer to believe the President than some no name economist.

Makes sense, since he has no background or education in economics. Let that partisan flag fly high.
 
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.
 
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.

Take your partisan hackery elsewhere.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

The revenue generated via the ACA is LESS than the expenses it puts forth. Pretty easy to understand.



It's the study that Obama is using as the base for his claim. He is lying about what it will cause. Quit making excuses and diverting.

Alright, that explains how eliminating the ACA might make the voodoo economics work. Still doesn't mean he has a snowball's chance of getting it repealed so he better have a 'Plan B'.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Take your partisan hackery elsewhere.

Sorry, but I'm taking it to your partisan hackery, whether you like it or not. :lamo

Here's what Politifact has to say about Mr. Rosen's "study":

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University "Growth, distribution and tax reform: Thoughts on the Romney proposal"

Rosen’s main point is that any assessment of the Romney tax plan that ignores its impact on economic growth is incomplete. "This is curious," Rosen said, "because increasing growth is the motivation for the proposal in the first place." Growth creates more income for the government to tax which would help offset the revenues lost through rate cuts.

Rosen said he’s not alone in thinking this oversight is odd. He said economists he spoke to were "incredulous when I told them that the numbers being discussed in the press are based on calculations that explicitly rule out any changes in labor supply or saving behavior."

Rosen readily admits that no one can accurately predict the future so he runs the numbers using three growth rates for GDP - 3 percent, 5 percent and 7 percent. By comparison, the White House budget planners assume an average rate of close to 3 percent.

Like Feldstein, he used 2009 data. Unlike Feldstein, he analyzed what happens for taxpayers making $100,000 and up, and then repeated it for those making $200,000 and up.

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.

There is only one scenario where Rosen saw a wrinkle -- when households making less than $200,000 are shielded from the loss of deductions under certain tax and growth assumptions. Rosen saw a $28 billion gap and said "maintaining an approximately constant tax burden on high-income individuals would be more challenging." But not "mathematically impossible."

The response

Some news organizations noted the Tax Policy Center did factor in higher growth in its original study. It used a model developed by a Romney adviser, Gregory Mankiw, and found that while growth softened the burden on people making less money, the shift is still there.

"Our results are not qualitatively different, even if we include additional taxes generated from the growth effects," the authors wrote.

The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth.

PolitiFact | Romney claims five studies back up his tax plan

Note that Rosen assumes ALL deductions are eliminated for those making between $100k and $200k ... when Romney has specifically said that he would NOT eliminate the most expensive deductions (home mortgage interest and health care deductions). What, therefore, is the point of Rosen's analysis?
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

All studies are based on assumptions. The appeal to an expert opinion will always be to an expert that supports your position.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Alright, that explains how eliminating the ACA might make the voodoo economics work. Still doesn't mean he has a snowball's chance of getting it repealed so he better have a 'Plan B'.

He can just do like Obama, and order an executive order that none of it is to be implemented. Quite easy.

Sorry, but I'm taking it to your partisan hackery, whether you like it or not. :lamo

Here's what Politifact has to say about Mr. Rosen's "study":

Spin all you want, you are a left-wing hack that is just about never based in reality. Quit thread crapping. Go away with your hack views and hack links.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

All studies are based on assumptions. The appeal to an expert opinion will always be to an expert that supports your position.

Which makes it somewhat interesting that Obama has used this economists study, when his study doesn't say what Obama want's it to say.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

He can just do like Obama, and order an executive order that none of it is to be implemented. Quite easy.



Spin all you want, you are a left-wing hack that is just about never based in reality. Quit thread crapping. Go away with your hack views and hack links.

Why don't you address the facts in lieu of your stupid ad hominem attacks? A wild-ass partisan hack like you doesn't have much credibility when throwing around the partisan hack label.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

He can just do like Obama, and order an executive order that none of it is to be implemented. Quite easy.



Spin all you want, you are a left-wing hack that is just about never based in reality. Quit thread crapping. Go away with your hack views and hack links.

Except Obama's executive order reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment, it didn't place the ACA into effect. That was done by vote of congress. It's funny how the right accuses Obama of flaunting the process with executive orders when it's the Republicans who end up utilizing them the most.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

The response here is typical...hillarious...comical. The guy CITED says that what is being cited is NOT what he said. You may disagree with the guy, but thats not the point. The point is, they are LYING about what he said. Oh...I know...the partisan brain cant grasp such basic realities. Still...
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard

Don't like the source, but have seen nothing that debunks it... from the author of the study on Romney's tax plan:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I posted this report many times here on these very forums more than a week ago

Not one Obama Supporter even attempted to refute it. They can't and they won't.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Why don't you address the facts

You waste so much of everyone's time with your silly projections. Go back to your DNC office and let people have a discussion without your political hackery disturbances.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Except Obama's executive order reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment, it didn't place the ACA into effect. That was done by vote of congress. It's funny how the right accuses Obama of flaunting the process with executive orders when it's the Republicans who end up utilizing them the most.

Obama put forth that the executive branch, who has the job of 'enforcement' of our laws, would not enforce LAW. Romney can do the same. And all those on the left that didn't complain about Obama doing it will have no right to complain about Romney doing it.
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Obama put forth that the executive branch, who has the job of 'enforcement' of our laws, would not enforce LAW. Romney can do the same. And all those on the left that didn't complain about Obama doing it will have no right to complain about Romney doing it.

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

You waste so much of everyone's time with your silly projections. Go back to your DNC office and let people have a discussion without your political hackery disturbances.

Did you address the facts? No. So ... shhhhh
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

I posted this report many times here on these very forums more than a week ago

Not one Obama Supporter even attempted to refute it. They can't and they won't.

Politifact did a nice job of it, and I've responded to it at least once before -- maybe when someone else posted it. The bottom line is that he still cant make Romney's numbers add up without jetissoning some of Romney's promises and/or making completely unrealistic assumptions about growth (Ryan's forte).
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Why don't you address the facts in lieu of your stupid ad hominem attacks? A wild-ass partisan hack like you doesn't have much credibility when throwing around the partisan hack label.

its not an "attack" its accurate... If Obama spit in your face youd claim it was like a snow flake and was a gift..

I will give you props.. nobody shills for Obama more then you.. not even Biden. facts be damned.. and let me guess you beleive the 7.8 drop in unemployment lie.. its scary what the dems try to sell...
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Politifact did a nice job of it, and I've responded to it at least once before -- maybe when someone else posted it. The bottom line is that he still cant make Romney's numbers add up without jetissoning some of Romney's promises and/or making completely unrealistic assumptions about growth (Ryan's forte).

where the budget? where is the cutting of the deficit in half? Obama lied.. Obama is a Liar..a scumbag.. a fraud.. a zero..
 
Re: Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax P

Prof Rosen makes some very interesting, one might say Randian, assumptions in his paper - which does read more like a political defence than a true economics study.

Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform: Thoughts on the Romney Proposal
by
Harvey S. Rosen, Princeton University
Griswold Center for Economic Policy Studies
Working Paper No. 228, September 2012

The Romney campaign has asserted that all this can be done in a way that raises the same amount of revenue as under the status quo (“revenue neutral”) without raising the tax burden on taxpayers with low and moderate incomes.
In a recent paper that has garnered a lot of attention, Washington’s Tax Policy Center (TPC) has challenged this assertion, arguing that it is mathematically impossible for the Romney proposal to achieve all these goals

To begin, both sides in the debates must of necessity make certain assumptions about the effects of tax policy on economic activity. The Tax Policy Center seems to make more of an effort to collect usable data than Prof Rosen does, which he acknowledges:
. . . the TPC model is based on a large set of publicly available tax returns (in electronic form and anonymized) provided by the Internal Revenue Service. When analyzing any change in the tax code, the TPC in effect plays H&R Block for every return, computing what the tax liability would be under the hypothetical new tax system. With such information for each taxpayer in hand, the TPC can compute the average change in taxes for each income group.

Following this admission that the TPC is starting from a collection of real information, Rosen falls into the Randian camp when he writes:
If taxes on wages go up, people might work less.
Isn't it just as likely that "people" might work more to maintain the take home part of their pay cheque? Not every American is John Galt

Another 'assumption' by Prof Rosen lies in the economic actions of high income individuals in regards to changes in tax policy
I assume that for every hundred dollars that the government might expect to lose by reducing tax rates on this group, revenues fall by only about $89 because of decreases in various avoidance activities
Why would he assume that? Why would a person receiving $20 million a year in income, stop using the various tax avoidance methods he presently enjoys. Sure - take away some of the common tax avoidance schemes presently legal but others will come into use, that's what they pay the tax attorneys for and the lobbyists who ensure the loopholes remain in the tax laws.

A favourite claim of the Austrian school and of modern Republicans
Although both economic theory and historical experience suggest that a tax system with lower marginal rates and a broader base would enhance growth
True, the Hayek followers have an economic theory that suggests lower marginal rates "enhance growth" but that is not supported by any "historical experience"

not quite In conclusion but almost and perhaps the basis for the Obama campaign's efforts to use Prof Rosen's paper as support for the President's tax policies
It seems fair to say that if the scheduled tax increases for 2013 actually went into effect and the definition of “high income” excludes people with 6-digit incomes below $200,000, then under the Romney proposal, maintaining an approximately constant tax burden on high-income individuals would be more challenging.

As Obama has constantly stated, his desire to return high income Americans taxes to the 39.6% rate seen during the Clinton years means only those individuals making more than $200,000, or couples with more than $250,000 income. Inserting those Americans making between $100K and $200K into the equation is the only means by which Rosen can justify his claims that the White House is "misrepresenting my study"
 
Back
Top Bottom