Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Princeton Economist calls out Obama campaign; who is the liar?
Topic Started: Oct 8 2012, 08:22 AM (260 Views)
Joan Foster

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

It would be a lie if I said I knew exactly what the plan is from either candidate, the fine details anyway. But I do have a fair grasp on the general approach each is promoting.

The battle in the media seems to be stuck on "CLOSING LOOPHOLES", which is important, however the bigger BS from Barry's Team is on the revenue increase topic ....which is very ironic when you consider Barry's record over the last 3+ years.

Barry's deficit / debt reduction plans (plural) have all had unrealistic numbers used for the growth forecast (which he has failed at reaching 3 years steady now!), and they've all been full of promises that his plan works magic long after he would be gone even if he were to be re-elected ...while his campaign ignores growth when calculating what they call the Romney Plan.

It's a no-brainer that the "magic" of any plan to increase government revenue through tax increases AND immediate growth projections during a down market will not work ...which is about as smart of a plan as trying to CHANGE us over to alternative energy, with the HOPE that our economy will grow stronger with higher energy costs.


ADD: Think back to the budget battles in which both sides were working to make us feel better about reducing spending growth, NOT reducing actual levels of spending. That is when Barry forecast our enormous growth ...the "summer of recovery" was the start of it!
Edited by kbp, Oct 8 2012, 09:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math-behind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.html

Princeton Economist: The Math Behind Romney's Tax Plan Adds Up

At last night's presidential debate, Barack Obama said that Mitt Romney's tax plan--cutting rates by 20 percent across the board and maintaining revenue neutrality by eliminating loopholes--is mathematically impossible.

"If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class," Obama said. "It's — it's math. It's arithmetic."

Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can't actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not 'on the table', and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare's tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare's spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out.

As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney's plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under "plausible" growth assumptions.

snip







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
"[T]he TPC model assumes that regardless of the tax rate, people work the same amount, save the same amount, and invest the same amount," writes Rosen. But growth is the whole point of Romney's plan. "[A] proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same," Rosen writes. "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."

*What counts as plausible? Rosen notes that that's in the eye of the beholder, but it wouldn't be zero, as the Tax Policy Center assumes


I should have included this in my last post.

The political topic has been more directed to "loopholes", as I suppose that seems like it associates with the "1%" bad guys better during the election campaign, but the more important factor is GROWTH ...IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/krugman-calls-obama-debate-stretches-minor-fudges-but-romney-flat-out-untruths/

And then there's Krugman ... reminds me of the Harvard Professor who called Obama a "brilliant constitutional scholar."

I'm sure Krugman would claim that Obama is a brilliant economist as well.

As Obama said in that 2008 speech "Where's your dollar (but pronounced more like dolla') ? "


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/krugman-calls-obama-debate-stretches-minor-fudges-but-romney-flat-out-untruths/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply