Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    Obama is basing the number on 10 years of the cost of the tax cuts Romney has posted on his own web site.

    Some fact-checkers and news professionals say this is false or mostly false, because Romney plans to offset the tax cuts by closing loop-holes and deductions for the wealthy, so they pay the same as they pay now.

    1) If we only have specifics on the tax cut side, isn't it fair to talley them up and say this is how much we are talking about over 10 years?  If Romney announced tomorrow that the mortgage interest deduction was on the table for everyone making more than $200K, then that would change the total, but until and unless he sets out the plan for offsetting the cuts, this seems like a fair attack.  IMO, calling this a lie is like saying the Sox are down five runs, and somebody calling you a liar because the game isn't over yet.  The number can change, but not if Romney doesn't do anything to change it.

    2) It seems like nobody is questioning how this actually helps the economy grow.  The idea Republicans have always championed with regards to tax cuts is that if you put money back into the hands of the people, they will invest that money back into the economy.  But if you're keeping the total tax burden of the wealthy equal to the total at the higher marginal rate, how does that do anything at all?

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    "IMO, calling this a lie is like saying the Sox are down five runs, and somebody calling you a liar because the game isn't over yet. The number can change, but not if Romney doesn't do anything to change it."

    That is wrong. What Romney said is the game will end up tied, otherwise there is no game. There wil not be a 5 trillion tax cut based on a straight cut in tax rates, unless there are corresponding changes to tax deductions and loopholes.

    "But if you're keeping the total tax burden of the wealthy equal to the total at the higher marginal rate, how does that do anything at all?"

    It does quite a bit. Simplifying the tax rates is inherently fair, and no longer will small business have to pay a dozen tax lawyers to figure out what taxes are owed...the economy will improve. The current complicated ridiculous tax code is a major burden to the economy.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Obama is basing the number on 10 years of the cost of the tax cuts Romney has posted on his own web site.

    Some fact-checkers and news professionals say this is false or mostly false, because Romney plans to offset the tax cuts by closing loop-holes and deductions for the wealthy, so they pay the same as they pay now.

    1) If we only have specifics on the tax cut side, isn't it fair to talley them up and say this is how much we are talking about over 10 years?  If Romney announced tomorrow that the mortgage interest deduction was on the table for everyone making more than $200K, then that would change the total, but until and unless he sets out the plan for offsetting the cuts, this seems like a fair attack.  IMO, calling this a lie is like saying the Sox are down five runs, and somebody calling you a liar because the game isn't over yet.  The number can change, but not if Romney doesn't do anything to change it.

    2) It seems like nobody is questioning how this actually helps the economy grow.  The idea Republicans have always championed with regards to tax cuts is that if you put money back into the hands of the people, they will invest that money back into the economy.  But if you're keeping the total tax burden of the wealthy equal to the total at the higher marginal rate, how does that do anything at all?

     




    How are specifics goinig to help you seeing you can't even grasp the basic concept?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to BetheKoolaid's comment:

    "IMO, calling this a lie is like saying the Sox are down five runs, and somebody calling you a liar because the game isn't over yet. The number can change, but not if Romney doesn't do anything to change it." That is wrong. What Romney said is the game will end up tied, otherwise there is no game. There wil not be a 5 trillion tax cut based on a straight cut in tax rates, unless there are corresponding changes to tax deductions and loopholes. "But if you're keeping the total tax burden of the wealthy equal to the total at the higher marginal rate, how does that do anything at all?" It does quite a bit. Simplifying the tax rates is inherently fair, and no longer will small business have to pay a dozen tax lawyers to figure out what taxes are owed...the economy will improve. The current complicated ridiculous tax code is a major burden to the economy.




    Your missing the entire premise.

     

    Mittens is lying if he says the game will end in a tie...if he says it in the 5th inning.

    Mittens proposal is two-fold.

    He says he will reduce income and various other taxes 20%...

    While maintaining the same revenue.

     

    So the first part of his plan is easy ... which is why that is the only part the wingnuts talk about.

    The second part is what throws the wingnuts into a tizzy...the math.

     

    Mittens plans to close loopholes, deductions etc but only on the 'wealthy'.

    TPC has said that is impossible given the amount of deductions available for closure.

    Pof Rosen has said that it is kinda do-able, but you have to;

    Use data from 2009...

    Repeal ACA...

    Not factor in AMT for individuls or business...

    Lower the bar for 'wealthy' to $100K...

    Assume an unrealistic GDP growth...

    Abd base the GDP growth on a revenue-neutral tax policy, which means there would be no cuts in peoples taxes just a different allocation of where they are derived from....

     

    Even Rosen admits that he doesn't really know what Mittens plan is so he wings it.

     



    And Obama's plan is??????

    4 years and counting.  no plan.  no budget.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Why isn't it fair to call it a $5 trillion tax cut? Because the only thing that Romney presents is tax RATES. There is NO WAY the Obama can say that changing the rates will cause a $5 Trillion cut in revenues. That is so blatantly impossible, it amounts to a lie. 

    Byt that won't stop the moonbats.

    The facts are that when Bush instituted his tax RATE cuts, eventually tax REVENUES went up until the financial crisis cratered the economy. I am not climing any cause and effect, in fact I am claiming the whole business of claiming some future revenues from a tax rate cut is IMPOSSIBLE. 

    How does Obama or ROmney know how many transactions will be taxed in the future and how big they might be? They don't.  Tax revenues to the government are more related to economic activity than the tax rate. That is why these isiots need to stop talking about tax rates and start talking about how to get the private economy to start generating more taxable events.

    Oh, that's right, Romney is the only one doing that while Obama engages in his class warfare.



    So it's a five trillion dollar tax cut, assuming current rates of GDP growth.  Shouldn't Romney come out and say no, because we expect a trillion dollars of growth over the current rate over the next decade.  Or two trillion, or three trillion.  And then shouldn't he explain how the other two or three or four trillion in lost revenue will be offset?

    If his plan B is to scrap his plan, and keep things the way they are, and his plan A has no details, why would you have any faith that plan A would really happen?  And if Romney doesn't represent a change in economic policy, why would anybody vote for him at all?

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    How can anyone believe anything Romney says about anything?  The man flip flops in the same sentence.  

    he was prochoice.  Then he was anti-abortion, promising to end planned parenthood.  Now he says he isn't supporting any legislation that limits access to abortions. 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Why isn't it fair to call it a $5 trillion tax cut? Because the only thing that Romney presents is tax RATES. There is NO WAY the Obama can say that changing the rates will cause a $5 Trillion cut in revenues. That is so blatantly impossible, it amounts to a lie. 

    Byt that won't stop the moonbats.

    The facts are that when Bush instituted his tax RATE cuts, eventually tax REVENUES went up until the financial crisis cratered the economy. I am not climing any cause and effect, in fact I am claiming the whole business of claiming some future revenues from a tax rate cut is IMPOSSIBLE. 

    How does Obama or ROmney know how many transactions will be taxed in the future and how big they might be? They don't.  Tax revenues to the government are more related to economic activity than the tax rate. That is why these isiots need to stop talking about tax rates and start talking about how to get the private economy to start generating more taxable events.

    Oh, that's right, Romney is the only one doing that while Obama engages in his class warfare.



    So it's a five trillion dollar tax cut, assuming current rates of GDP growth.  Shouldn't Romney come out and say no, because we expect a trillion dollars of growth over the current rate over the next decade.  Or two trillion, or three trillion.  And then shouldn't he explain how the other two or three or four trillion in lost revenue will be offset?

    If his plan B is to scrap his plan, and keep things the way they are, and his plan A has no details, why would you have any faith that plan A would really happen?  And if Romney doesn't represent a change in economic policy, why would anybody vote for him at all?

     

     




    He  has said that.  Expecting a bigger GDP, that is. 

     

    Obama has said NOTHING.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Tax rates and the revenue they generate are fairly consistent and can be projected with some degree of accuracy. Do you have any links or other references to back up this claim? You can't possibly believe that government forecasts when it comes to money are anything close to accurate, can you? Big Dig???  Virtually every defense dept. program?? IS there ANY estimate from the government that comes in accruately? Have you forgotten we are $16 trillion in debt as a nation? If the government were as accurate as you claim did they do this on purpose??? I'd love to see what you have to back up your claim. 




    What the freak do the cost overruns produced by a private company contracted for a gov't project have to do with tax revenue forecasts?

     

    Newsflash spanky, the gov't doesn't build roads and bridges, it hires PRIVATE companies to do that. If they blow up the budget then that is on the private company.

     

     

    Here's a fact from actual vs projected tax revenue forecasts done by Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, January/February 2012.

    Indeed, the RMSPE (root mean square projection error) and MAPE (mean absolute projection error) are 2.2 percent and 1.5 percent, and 1.6 percent and 1.1 percent for the CBO projections and RW, respectively. These differences are relatively small in absolute terms and are not statistically significant.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/12/01/21-40Kliesen.pdf




    '08 Debate: Biden Complains People 'Can Barely Pay To Fill Their Gas Tank'...

    Gas was $3.17 gallon; now, $3.82...

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    No problem we have empty chair's green agenda:

    REPORT: Nuclear Iran would 'double' oil prices, cost millions of U.S. jobs...

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:



    Not that your attempts at distraction have anything to do with the question of why isn't it fair that Obama attack Romney for the Ryan plan he previously endorsed and is now lying about or flopping on.......

     

    But.....

     

     

     

     

    What would a full-scale invasion of Iran do to oil prices, and what would that cost?


    Bear in mind (top the extent that term is applicable) that our military is already stretched too thin, 75% of Americans are too fat for the draft, and Iraq cost over $1,000,000,000,000 for a substantially easier fight.




    Beside the point we have empty chair leading the country toward renewables.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:



    Not that your attempts at distraction have anything to do with the question of why isn't it fair that Obama attack Romney for the Ryan plan he previously endorsed and is now lying about or flopping on.......

     

    But.....

     

     

     

     

    What would a full-scale invasion of Iran do to oil prices, and what would that cost?


    Bear in mind (top the extent that term is applicable) that our military is already stretched too thin, 75% of Americans are too fat for the draft, and Iraq cost over $1,000,000,000,000 for a substantially easier fight.



    SURPRISE: U.S. sends military forces to Jordan...

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    Why isn't it fair to call it a $5 trillion tax cut? Because the only thing that Romney presents is tax RATES. There is NO WAY the Obama can say that changing the rates will cause a $5 Trillion cut in revenues. That is so blatantly impossible, it amounts to a lie. 

    Byt that won't stop the moonbats.

    The facts are that when Bush instituted his tax RATE cuts, eventually tax REVENUES went up until the financial crisis cratered the economy. I am not climing any cause and effect, in fact I am claiming the whole business of claiming some future revenues from a tax rate cut is IMPOSSIBLE. 

    How does Obama or ROmney know how many transactions will be taxed in the future and how big they might be? They don't.  Tax revenues to the government are more related to economic activity than the tax rate. That is why these isiots need to stop talking about tax rates and start talking about how to get the private economy to start generating more taxable events.

    Oh, that's right, Romney is the only one doing that while Obama engages in his class warfare.



    So it's a five trillion dollar tax cut, assuming current rates of GDP growth.  Shouldn't Romney come out and say no, because we expect a trillion dollars of growth over the current rate over the next decade.  Or two trillion, or three trillion.  And then shouldn't he explain how the other two or three or four trillion in lost revenue will be offset?

    If his plan B is to scrap his plan, and keep things the way they are, and his plan A has no details, why would you have any faith that plan A would really happen?  And if Romney doesn't represent a change in economic policy, why would anybody vote for him at all?

     

     




    He  has said that.  Expecting a bigger GDP, that is. 

     

    Obama has said NOTHING.




    Mandatory spending increases by 200 billion each year.  Romney also wants to add 200 billion / year to defense spending.  His tax cuts will cost will cost 500 billion / year.  That's almost a trillion dollars we need to make up for.  We would need GDP growth over 3 trillion dollars / year just to maintain our current deficit level. 1 trillion stretches the imagination.  

    Why is this important?  Romney has said his tax plan must be revenue neutral, but there is going to be some speculation as to GDP growth involved - if he is wildly optimistic, and misses his mark, every dollar he is off will add to the deficit and debt.  A $2 trillion deficit will mean our debt in 2016 is $24 trillion.  Will you hold Romney accountable, or will you say he inherited a large deficit from Obama?  The deficit is roughly the same as when Obama took office.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:



    Not that your attempts at distraction have anything to do with the question of why isn't it fair that Obama attack Romney for the Ryan plan he previously endorsed and is now lying about or flopping on.......

     

    But.....

     

     

     

     

    What would a full-scale invasion of Iran do to oil prices, and what would that cost?


    Bear in mind (top the extent that term is applicable) that our military is already stretched too thin, 75% of Americans are too fat for the draft, and Iraq cost over $1,000,000,000,000 for a substantially easier fight.




    Beside the point we have empty chair leading the country toward renewables.




    When the market crashed in 2008, oil and gas prices came tumbling down with it.  There was no change in supply, and no change in demand, and yet prices were cut in half.  The price of milk didn't change.  The price of bread didn't change.  Only the price of gas.  How can we not draw the conclusion that these prices are being manipulated?

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share