Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on August 05, 2012, 08:22:46 AM
-
Those are the two words used by the Tax Policy Center to describe Romney's proposed tax plan
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table-.html
The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent.
The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.
Favorable Conditions
To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class. [/b]
-
:). What it proposed is never what ends up as the final package.
All he should do is say he will push for simpson bowles and obama will have nothing but a big fat egg on his face.
-
:). What it proposed is never what ends up as the final package.
All he should do is say he will push for simpson bowles and obama will have nothing but a big fat egg on his face.
There is a specific reason that Romney will never do that
Can you guess what it is?
-
so they made assumptions and youre running with it?
I think I called this...
-
romney won't cut spending. He will cut 'entitlements' like the money paid into their own social security.
But govt pork is safe.
-
romney won't cut spending. He will cut 'entitlements' like the money paid into their own social security.
But govt pork is safe.
maybe so, but will his tax plan cost us 700k jobs?
-
maybe so, but will his tax plan cost us 700k jobs?
He is looking to give us the Bush economic plan right?
I think we lost 4 million jobs in 2008 from that.
-
He is looking to give us the Bush economic plan right?
I think we lost 4 million jobs in 2008 from that.
LOL is that something that you received in an obama email?
-
LOL is that something that you received in an obama email?
My mistake - it was only 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's not 4 million.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/
-
My mistake - it was only 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's not 4 million.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/
yes and they were all b/c of the bush tax plan...
I guess obama is to blame as well then since he extended the plan twice?
-
so they made assumptions and youre running with it?
I think I called this...
what else could they do since Romney conveniently left out all the details on which spending he would cut or what loopholes he would close
did you notice that they said they made the most favorable assumptions for Romney and even used one of his own advisors "implausiby large growth effects from tax cuts" and still couldn't find any way to make his plan work withouth raising taxes on the middle class
All Romney needs to do now is fill in the details on his spending cuts and tax reforms and we'll know if it's only ~ 2k increase to the middle class or something greater
One thing we can say for sure is that it won't result in a penny of higher taxes on the 1% (there is your hint as to why Romney will never endorse or implement Simpson Bowles)
-
Absolutely horrible misuse of the term "mathematically impossible."
I'm assuming the proof is posted to Arxiv?
-
Where's Obama's plan to balance the budget?
Oh right... it doesn't exist.
-
what else could they do since Romney conveniently left out all the details on which spending he would cut or what loopholes he would close
did you notice that they said they made the most favorable assumptions for Romney and even used one of his own advisors "implausiby large growth effects from tax cuts" and still couldn't find any way to make his plan work withouth raising taxes on the middle class
All Romney needs to do now is fill in the details on his spending cuts and tax reforms and we'll know if it's only ~ 2k increase to the middle class or something greater
One thing we can say for sure is that it won't result in a penny of higher taxes on the 1% (there is your hint as to why Romney will never endorse or implement Simpson Bowles)
LOL I agree he needs to be more specific just as obama does on his tax plan that is set to cost us 700k jobs.
The "favorable" assumption still make assumption that he will eliminate credits etc...
that is an ASSinine ASSumption when his plan does not call for it...
that is basically sticking words in his mouth and saying you see!!!
the essence of a straw man argument, which is probably why youre loving it so much.
-
LOL I agree he needs to be more specific just as obama does on his tax plan that is set to cost us 700k jobs.
The "favorable" assumption still make assumption that he will eliminate credits etc...
that is an ASSinine ASSumption when his plan does not call for it...
that is basically sticking words in his mouth and saying you see!!!
the essence of a straw man argument, which is probably why youre loving it so much.
have you read any of the details of those assumptions because without making assumptions his entire plan is WORTHLESS because there would be no way to evalaute it
you can read them all right here and then let us know what you would have done differently:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
btw - you still seem to have no clue what a Straw Man Argument is
-
have you read any of the details of those assumptions because without making assumptions his entire plan is WORTHLESS because there would be no way to evalaute it
you can read them all right here and then let us know what you would have done differently:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
btw - you still seem to have no clue what a Straw Man Argument is
so you just put words in his mouth and run with the results?
LMFAO so basically your saying "yes, we made shit up b/c he wasnt clear" but this is a good assesment?
are you FUCKING SERIOUS???
-
so you just put words in his mouth and run with the results?
LMFAO so basically your saying "yes, we made shit up b/c he wasnt clear" but this is a good assesment?
are you FUCKING SERIOUS???
I didn't put any words in his mouth
The TCP made the most favorable assumptions possible of the relevent/crucial data that Romney chose to leave out.
Here some key examples - tell us if you agree with this or how you would have done it differently:
The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
-
Cutting the deficit, fixing the economy part 1:
- End Useless government agencies (ATF, DEA, FCC, DOE, etc.) # 1 agency that should be eliminated or at the very least cut back enormously= EPA
- End Useless government programs+entitlements ( Seriously scale back UE benefits, foodstamps, welfare, farm subsidies, green energy scam programs, etc.)
- Repeal Osamacare
- End all foreign aid-- especially to enemies of the United States; start with Egypt, the Hamas terrorists in charge of Gaza etc.
- Enforce existing immigration laws on the books and secure the borders
- No more bailouts for ANYONE OR ANYTHING
- Repeal Glass Stegal act==== NUMBER 1 PRIORITY
- Radically overhaul the US tax code
-
And I will point this out again:
Where's Obama's plan to balance the budget?
Oh right... it doesn't exist.
-
I didn't put any words in his mouth
The TCP made the most favorable assumptions possible of the relevent/crucial data that Romney chose to leave out.
Here some key examples - tell us if you agree with this or how you would have done it differently:
I dont agree with it, I would have simply said it cant be scored b/c it isnt a complete plan and left it at that.
-
Lol at this thread. need I post the chart again w obamas predictions about the stim bill?
-
I dont agree with it, I would have simply said it cant be scored b/c it isnt a complete plan and left it at that.
In large part I actually agree with you but at th same time Romney offered this into the public domain as his "plan" so they are in some way obliged to take it seriously
if they give him all the best case scenarios that are available (some of which come from current Romney advisors) and they still can't make it work then why not report that?
-
In large part I actually agree with you but at th same time Romney offered this into the public domain as his "plan" so they are in some way obliged to take it seriously
if they give him all the best case scenarios that are available (some of which come from current Romney advisors) and they still can't make it work then why not report that?
b/c they still make wild assumptions...
you think that is honesty?
-
b/c they still make wild assumptions...
you think that is honesty?
Honesty? HEHEHEHE!!! Democrats and their idiotic supporters don't have such word in their vocabulary.
-
Speaking of assumptions that did not pan out as promised.
-
WHERE IS OBAMA'S BALANCED BUDGET PROPOSAL?
-
WHERE IS OBAMA'S BALANCED BUDGET PROPOSAL?
A better question would be where is the budget? How long with out a budget now?
-
A better question would be where is the budget? How long with out a budget now?
We have been operating on CR's since the Democrats took over the congress. They refuse to put a budget in place since it would expose just how out of whack things are and would force a real discussion how to end this crazy train of fiscal bankruptcy Obama/Reid/Pelosi insist upon.
-
WHERE IS OBAMA'S BALANCED BUDGET PROPOSAL?
This is their response to you, sir:
what is worse in the eyes of God?
marrying 7 women? Or marrying 1 dude?
-
A better question would be where is the budget? How long with out a budget now?
Well to be fair to Obama, he did put forth a budget... a budget which never balances and was unanimously rejected by the Senate.
-
b/c they still make wild assumptions...
you think that is honesty?
There assumptions are a BEST CASE in favor of Romney and in one example based on a model developed by one of his current advisors which included “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts
Additionally, Romney referred to the TPC as "objective"
so yes, I think this is totally fair and Romney has still have the opportunity to fill in the details he convenienty excluded and the result can only get WORSE for the middle class
It would have been nice if the TPC said "Mr Romney - your plan incomplete and therefore bullshit" but in fairness to Romney he put this in the public domain and said he was putting his plan on the table for everyone to see so the TPC was fair to evaluate it and draw and publish their conclusions
I look forward to Romeney coming forward with more details but I doubt that will happen
-
There assumptions are a BEST CASE in favor of Romney and in one example based on a model developed by one of his current advisors which included “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts
Additionally, Romney referred to the TPC as "objective"
so yes, I think this is totally fair and Romney has still have the opportunity to fill in the details he convenienty excluded and the result can only get WORSE for the middle class
It would have been nice if the TPC said "Mr Romney - your plan incomplete and therefore bullshit" but in fairness to Romney he put this in the public domain and said he was putting his plan on the table for everyone to see so the TPC was fair to evaluate it and draw and publish their conclusions
I look forward to Romeney coming forward with more details but I doubt that will happen
Obama gave all sorts of details on his assumptions as to the Stim Bill
Deal with this FACt you obama kneepadder
-
Obama gave all sorts of details on his assumptions as to the Stim Bill
Deal with this FACt you obama kneepadder
great point and from your chart we can assume his BEST case assumptions were not good enough
I assume your point is that even best case assumption for Romneys plan would wind up to actually be much worse for the middle class
btw - we know that the 1% has done fantastic under Obama and in fact Romney's primary benefactor Sheldon Adelson has seen his wealth increase the most of any single person during the Obama administration. I guess that's just not good enough for him and he wants even more
-
great point and from your chart we can assume his BEST case assumptions were not good enough
Those weren't his best case assumptions, but his only case assumption.
It proves one of two things:
1. Obama is incompetent.
-or-
2. The stim bill actually hurt the economy.
Either answer is sufficient to kick Obama out of office.
I assume your point is that even best case assumption for Romneys plan would wind up to actually be much worse for the middle class
Actually, if we were to follow the TPC study's assumption that Romney would pay for half of his tax cuts by cutting government spending, then the middle "class" would get a major boost.
btw - we know that the 1% has done fantastic under Obama and in fact Romney's primary benefactor Sheldon Adelson has seen his wealth increase the most of any single person during the Obama administration. I guess that's just not good enough for him and he wants even more
If the 1% did well under Socialism Lite (Obama), then why would they want to change to Socialism Extra Lite (Romney)?
There's a reason why so many rich people want Obama reelected and why so many business groups lobby for more regulation, and it's not just economic ignorance. It's also a screwed up sense of self-interest: they realize that higher taxes and more regulation prevents smaller competitors from posing a threat to the already established businesses.
-
Those weren't his best case assumptions, but his only case assumption.
It proves one of two things:
1. Obama is incompetent.
-or-
2. The stim bill actually hurt the economy.
Either answer is sufficient to kick Obama out of office.
Actually, if we were to follow the TPC study's assumption that Romney would pay for half of his tax cuts by cutting government spending, then the middle "class" would get a major boost.
If the 1% did well under Socialism Lite (Obama), then why would they want to change to Socialism Extra Lite (Romney)?
There's a reason why so many rich people want Obama reelected and why so many business groups lobby for more regulation, and it's not just economic ignorance. It's also a screwed up sense of self-interest: they realize that higher taxes and more regulation prevents smaller competitors from posing a threat to the already established businesses.
Both of your assumptions are false but more importantly why would I waste my time trying to have a discussion with you about economics or taxation when you don't even understand how a health savings account works. If you can't even understand how the simple stuff works what's the point in wasting my time with you on more complicated topics
-
Both of your assumptions are false but more importantly why would I waste my time trying to have a discussion with you about economics or taxation when you don't even understand how a health savings account works. If you can't even understand how the simple stuff works what's the point in wasting my time with you on more complicated topics
-
Both of your assumptions are false
How so? The Obama team estimated that unemployment would be much lower than it actually is right now. That leaves only two options:
1. They were/are incompetent.
-or-
2. The "stimulus" and Obama's economic policies had the opposite effect they were intended to have.
Either way, it proves that Obama and his team need to get booted out of office.
The fact that you have a Keynesian lite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UBnSTYWh7w) in Romney leads me to believe that you should be supporting him in November, not Obama.
but more importantly why would I waste my time trying to have a discussion with you about economics or taxation when you don't even understand how a health savings account works. If you can't even understand how the simple stuff works what's the point in wasting my time with you on more complicated topics
Hahahaha, diversion tactics. You were the one who couldn't understand that taxing income spent on a certain product is, in fact, a tax hike.
-
How so? The Obama team estimated that unemployment would be much lower than it actually is right now. That leaves only two options:
1. They were/are incompetent.
-or-
2. The "stimulus" and Obama's economic policies had the opposite effect they were intended to have.
Either way, it proves that Obama and his team need to get booted out of office.
The fact that you have a Keynesian lite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UBnSTYWh7w) in Romney leads me to believe that you should be supporting him in November, not Obama.
Hahahaha, diversion tactics. You were the one who couldn't understand that taxing income spent on a certain product is, in fact, a tax hike.
This is my point.
You are 100% wrong.
Ill be glad to go over it with you again but until you can understand how an HSA works you're not qualified to discuss more complicated topics
Its just pointless
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=432980.50
-
This is my point.
You are 100% wrong.
Ill be glad to go over it with you again but until you can understand how an HSA woorks you're not qualified to discuss more complicated topics
Its just pointless
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptuions.