Re: Why isn't a $5 trillion tax cut a fair attack?
posted at 10/10/2012 1:12 PM EDT
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.