Mathematically Impossible

[Straw Man]

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]

[Soul Crusher]

 . 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. 

[Straw Man]

. 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?

[tonymctones]

so they made assumptions and youre running with it?

I think I called this...

[240 is Back]

romney won't cut spending.  He will cut 'entitlements' like the money paid into their own social security.

But govt pork is safe.

[tonymctones]

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?

[240 is Back]

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.

[tonymctones]

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?

[240 is Back]

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/

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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)

[doison]

Absolutely horrible misuse of the term "mathematically impossible." 


I'm assuming the proof is posted to Arxiv?

[howardroark]

Where's Obama's plan to balance the budget?

Oh right... it doesn't exist.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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???

[Straw Man]

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.

[George Whorewell]

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

[howardroark]

And I will point this out again:

Where's Obama's plan to balance the budget?

Oh right... it doesn't exist.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Lol at this thread.  need I post the chart again w obamas predictions about the stim bill? 

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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?

[dario73]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Speaking of assumptions that did not pan out as promised.