OT: Detailed Explanation of the Romney-Ryan Tax Plan

You are now entering the spin zone.....

My ass....laughed off!

It's actually a very concise characterization of their defense of their pro posal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at least a boo klet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicule .

roposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at least a b ooklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is evad e facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicu le.

What they propose to do is actually dirt-simple, easy to accomplish in a hundred different ways. Totally doable. They're not committing to any particular combination, leaving that to negotiations.

The "$5 trillion dollar tax cut" Obama and the Demagogues harp on is an out-and-out lie--that's not the proposal.

The shame is that political discourse is reduced to this. We ought to have real numbers from both sides illustrating their points, not childish zinger contests for low-information voters.

proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at least a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is ev ade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridi cule.

Apparently you didn't watch the debate. Romney's only defense of his budget and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would generat e enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he do but wish.

As in:

1. Reduce everyone's taxes.
2. Eliminate the deductions that benefit the middle class only. ...
3. Result: a tax increase for the middle class and a tax cut for the wealthy!

Yes, I know, everyone THINKS they are in the wealthy group. Guess what: Romney is saying, loud and clear: I'm going to raise the taxes on the middle class so I can reduce the taxes for the wealthy.

More DNC koolaide.

"Paid for by the Democratic National Committee (202) 863-8000 | This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

ir proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at least a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ri dicule.

to

et and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would gener ate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he do bu t wish.

Of course I watched it. It appears you're relying too much on Obama and his representations. The idea that our tax system of Obama- preferences (and others) can't be simplified is absurd.

Romney plainly stated one proposal: cap deductions at $25k. That leaves all the preferences for most people, but chops off for the high earners. Mission accomplished. Dirt simple. It works.

Obama's talking point about $5 trillion for the "rich" is a lie, an absurd lie, and a big one--I hate to break out the "L" word, but the guy knows perfectly well it's not true. - TOTAL FY2009 tax on income >$250k was $396 billion.[1] - If you cut their tax to ZERO it's not $5 trillion, not even over ten years. - A 20% cut in that WITH NO OFFSETS for ten years is ~$800 billion. Not $5 trillion. - Romney's proposing offsets. Limiting deductions easily pays for that, and for lower marginal rates in other brackets too.

Obama's "plan," meanwhile, is to self-destruct America, national suicide: borrow more, tax more, and spend it all. o Looting "rich" people: the only thing he can offer is raising the top marginal rate 4.6% on income >$250k. That raises ~35 billion a year, by my calcs on the SOI spreadsheets, against tera-buck deficits. Obama calls it $1 trillion, lately. A lie. o It's no solution to his overspending whatsoever. And, he wants to spend it, anyhow. o Green jobs. Great.

Obama: tax and borrow and spend, punish your enemies, reward your friends. Works great for him, bad for America.

I'll assume that's sarcasm.

The Romney tax plan has a lot in common with the Golden Tablets.

heir proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at lea st a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done i s evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicule.

g to

to

dget and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would gen erate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he do but wish.

Granting that Obama and his advisors are not stupid enough claim something that obviously isn't true, it seems likely that you are neglecting income streams that the rich enjoy, but aren't currently declaring as income, and Obama feels that the governemnt can get their hands on in future - granting a Democratic majority in congress

We've seen you way with statistics before, and it seems likely that are calling Obama a liar because he doesn't happen to have been wearing your set of blinkers when he made his calculation.

Whereas your "bring back the Great Depression" approach is going to make America great? Obama's approach has kept the economy growing and progressively generated more jobs - not as fast as we'd all like, but at least it's not the Great depression all over again. It looks a lot less like suicide than your scheme.

He may be able to define more of the money they collect as taxable income, which seems likely to make a rather more dramatic difference.

It's called stimulating the economy, and it's working. The Tea Party ensures that almost all of the benefit goes into the pockets of the top 1% of the income distribution, who can't be relied on to spend it. If they lost their majority in congress, the money might be directed where it would be more effective, and once the economy was back to running at full steam, it wouldn't need any more stimulation.

Nowhere near as bad as your scheme for recreating the Great Depression and punishing everybody, friend and foe alike. Sadly. your devotion to flat earth economics blinds you to this aspect of your program.

Why am I not surprised? Roney is a Republican - albeit a bit half- hearted in James Arthur's estimation - and can thus do no wrong.

heir proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at lea st a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done i s evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicule.

g to

to

dget and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would gen erate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he do but wish.

The Romney plan is still relying on a postulated increased revenue due to e conomic growth from his rate cuts to avoid a tax hike on the middle class a nd/or increased deficit. This is according to the most recent Rosen study. Even the conservatives admit to a trillion dollar shortfall otherwise.

te:

their proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at l east a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitabl e ridicule.

in

ing to

ht to

budget and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would g enerate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he d o but wish.

n.

to

economic growth from his rate cuts to avoid a tax hike on the middle class and/or increased deficit. This is according to the most recent Rosen study . Even the conservatives admit to a trillion dollar shortfall otherwise.htt p://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044398290457804494277293...

That growth assumption is a) a completely reasonable assumption (in contrast to the Obama budget assumptions that we'd be growing like gang busters each year, by "next year"). There's tremendous pent-up potential in the business community--they're waiting to roar back. We have 14.7% un/ underemployment. Get that down, and GDP grows, naturally.

b) not a necessary condition to reducing the deficit--Romney can also cut some of Obama's added, permanent stimulus spending, and he's said he will. There's plenty there to cut.

If government spending stimulated consumption which produced jobs, we'd be rolling in jobs. If food stamps and unemployment had greater than unity yield, we'd be rocketing skyward. If shovel-ready jobs didn't destroy more jobs than the temporary jobs it creates...we'd be rolling in jobs, and dough.

Pelosi says foodstamps and unemployment benefits are one of the best forms of stimulus, yielding $1.8 for every dollar spent. Therefore, we should all be on foodstamps--we'd make 80%+ every few months. We could spend it on solar cars.

You can talk about priming pumps all you want--it doesn't work. We've just tested it on the grandest scale in human history. The yield was negative, a net loss, not an explosive, positive-feedback recovery.

It doesn't work.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't incite either to higher production, it discourages both. It doesn't work if you borrow it from China, or from children's futures, and it doesn't work it you print it and call it "easing." It doesn't work.

It doesn't work in theory, and it doesn't work in practice. The empirical data bear that out by every conceivable measure, from GDP, to growth, to consumer confidence, new business startups, to employment.

Actually Obama's advisors agree that the 5 trilliion amount is wrong. Unfortunately Obama has ignored their knowledge. So tell us about the income streams that the rich enjoy. How much money is involved? What are these income streams? How is the govermment going to get their hands on them in the future , when they have not been able to get their hands on them now? How do you expect to get a Democratic majority in Congress when the president is not helping the Democrats is Congress campaign?

It is obvious that you have not thought your statement through.

Obama is in campaign mode. Truth is not as important as winning the election.

Obama's approach has had no effect over what the economy would do anyway.

It is not working. The economy is barely expanding.

Your understanding of economics will never get you a job. You should read Harvey Rosen's analysis of the Romney tax plan. Harvey Rosen is a Princeton University economist.

The stimulus's done by the Democrats has obviously not worked. And more of the same is not going to have any effect.

Dan

proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at least a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicule.

and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would generate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he do but wish.

Ahhhh, screw Ya!

Jamie

otherwise.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044398290457804494277293...

Romney's plan amounts to a return to Bush-era policies. What could go wrong?

A greater failure of understanding could scarcely be packed into fewer words.

Obama is Bush on overdrive.