Obama makes a strong statement on taxes!
Jebby, you have the mantra that Romney lies, well as I have asked so many others, WHERE IS THE LIE??? This whole evening was a glaring example of Obama lying and Candy Crowley covering for him time after time. Where did Romney lie?
Politifact reports lies regarding the apology tour. They’ll probably have more tomorrow. However, regarding his tax plan, even Fox News is turning against Romney in that regard. He’s not telling us how he’s going to pay for it, and for him to keep on hammering how it’s going to work at this stage is just dishonest.
DAMMIT JEBBY what are the lies!!! you spout others but NOT WHAT they say. YOU TELL ME! What LIES has ROMNEY TOLD??? VERIFIED H .
You state his ??Tax Plan . So he is not going to give specifics?? Good for him. NOTHING DISHONEST about that. NOT ONE THING! Please quit taxing the intelligence on people on this board. NOW about the lies.
That’s what I keep asking my Obama supporting Son, (his wife has a lockbox), and all he can do is repeat the Obama campaign lies about Romney.
Ok now pay attention I am gonna tell you how it works:
Tax rate goes from X to -x
Deducts go from +X to -x
Romney’s PLAN is to WORK with Congress (umm Novel Chucking Concept) to arrive at the balance and at the deducts that will be affected…DUH!
I do NOT want to hear specific plans as the POTUS is NOT a DICTATOR unlike the loser we have in office now. Congress makes laws, not the Prez, not Axlerod, or Jarett or the EPA or Eric Holder. I know we have not had that in nearly 4 years, but that is how it is supposed to flow.
Ok you gittin this yet, you got to be smarter than the cart* you know what I mean??
"smarter than the cart: A lady was wrestling with the shopping carts in Walmart the other day and was trying with much effort, cursing and fighting to separate two of them. I walked up and said: 'mam, you got to be smarter than the cart, and I proceeded to pull them apart and give her one…
No, it isn’t that he’s not giving specifics. He says his tax plan is revenue neutral, that it won’t raise taxes on the middle class, and will reduce taxes by 20%. But he doesn’t have a plan that does that, we’re supposed to wait until he gets elected. So is it not dishonest to say he can do all these things when he doesn’t even have a plan yet, and when several studies are saying it’s impossible to do?
As for lies in general, his plan for creating 12 million jobs is a lie, as those jobs are expected to be produced anyway, so calling it “his plan” is a lie. Both he and Ryan have used the Politifact lie of the year about the government takeover of health care, and he lied about the Obama trade agreements. Let’s not pretend Romney is a political saint of truth. He lies just as much as the Obama campaign.
Scroll down and look at all the ones with Romney’s face.
Liberals do not get that a tax cut does not COST anything. They think that the money the people make belongs to the government. “Cost” is a leftist straw-man argument.
If I give my kids $10 a month allowance for 9 months then tell them because of cutbacks I have to drop it to $7 a month I cut it back by $3, this did not COST my kids a dime. Now my kids have to change their budget so they only spend $7 a month instead of $10. Lowering ones budget is dropping cost not raising it. Dumba$$ Liberals do not understand common sense.
This is simply an argument of semantics. If you are decreasing tax revenue, then maybe it will not “cost” anything, but it will not be revenue-neutral unless you make up for it, and except for the six studies which Fox News has even attacked for their validity, everyone says this is not possible to use Romney’s plan he talks of and remain revenue neutral unless you increase tax burden on the middle class.
I gave you the answer and so did Romney last night…again and still you do not get it…wonder why!
He gave the same answer he’s been giving, yes. The one that doesn’t work. You can’t lower taxes across the board and expect to make up for the lost revenue by merely “simplifying” the tax code, as he puts it. Several people have shown that, yet he continues to ignore it. Ryan said as much in the Vice Presidential debate.
RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the… RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the… Do you know exactly what you’re doing? RYAN: Look—look at what Mitt Romney—look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we’re saying is, here’s our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is, here’s the framework… We want to work with Congress—we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful. Look… RADDATZ: No specifics, again. RYAN: Mitt—what we’re saying is, lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it… RADDATZ: And you guarantee this math will add up? RYAN: Absolutely.
So basically, they have no specific tax plan. His tax plan is an empty promise with no guarantee, and most likely will not work, given the analysis on it.
Romney gave the answer last nite…or at least ONE POSSIBLE answer. You simply put a dollar cap on deductions at whatever level is needed to offset the 20% decrease on all taxes. Of course NONE of the Obama quoted studies accounts for the fact that reducing tax RATES…will increase tax revenues through more tax paying jobs and businesses. They use a static model with simple ledger addition/subtraction. They need to talk to Art Laffer.
The larger picture is that no President gets to design all the ins and outs of a new tax code. Maybe it will work out to a 15% cut for all instead of twenty. Maybe certain deductions will be eliminated entirely and others left alone. It will be up to the Prez and Congress to work it out so that it is revenue neutral.
Meanwhile…we KNOW Obama’s plan…more of the same. He wants to take the WAR DIVIDEND to pay for schools & teachers. Only there is NO WAR DIVIDEND. We borrowed it from China…so he want to do more borrowing from China. What’s his plan for Medicare and SS??? Nothing… just continue the downward spiral and deny services to control costs. What President has had his own Senate reject his budget unanimously???
And you think Romney’s plan doesn’t work??
So in other words the middle class is hurt by not being able to get all of their deductions, because as the Tax Policy Center noted, there are not enough deductions in the upper tax bracket to satisfy cutting taxes in that same bracket. In other words, some of the deductions kept from the middle class would have to go to pay for the lower taxes on the rich.
The basic logic of our central finding is captured in Figure 2 from our paper (attached here as well). The graph shows that cutting individual income tax rates by 20 percent from today’s levels would reduce tax burdens by $251 billion per year (in 2015) among households with income above $200,000. But, if we assume a strict interpretation of the second goal – preserving and enhancing incentives for saving and investment (see footnote 2) – there are only $165 billion of available tax expenditures to close in that group if tax rates are cut). As a result, to achieve revenue neutrality, the resulting $86 billion annual shortfall must be made up by raising taxes on the rest of the population.
Which is contradictory to what their campaign says:
Deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, so we can lower tax rates across the board.
There are simply not enough loopholes to get the job done.
Simply not true.
We showed, in addition, that the same qualitative conclusions arise even when we added in
feedback effects of tax changes on economic growth and revenues, using estimates of those
effects that were developed by Harvard professor, and economic advisor to the Romney
campaign, Greg Mankiw.
In other words, let’s wait to figure it out. In the meantime, vote for us, because we are not Obama. Come on. They don’t have a plan, so they can’t go around talking about lowering taxes across the board 20% if they don’t know how to get that to work. And to say, “We know Obama’s plan is bad, so let’s vote for the person who doesn’t have a plan,” is ridiculous. As president, it may not be his job to come up with a tax plan, but if he’s going to campaign on it, he should at least have one written up to recommend. And he doesn’t.
Do you think Romney’s budget will have no borrowing of money? lol. And that “unanimous vote” is covered by Politifact. Republican’s put it up for a vote and everyone voted against it because Obama had already supplemented that one with a newer one. The vote was a means to laugh at Obama and did not have any real substance. Don’t resort to lies to argue.
He doesn’t have a plan. And that’s the problem, because he’s campaigning on empty promises and dreams.
Trekky, first of all He is not lying when he makes a statement on the 12 million jobs, it is an estimate and once you free up industry from burdensome regulations, affirm business of no reactionary costs, reclaim the medical insurance morass from the obama debacle, I see NO problem of putting 12 million people to work. please you libs keep tryingt to force the idea that Romney lies just by making statements. PLEASE GROW UP!
Trekky… I’ll just answer your comments with this article as I know I am not changing any minds here.
" The reason Obama and Biden are convinced Romney’s tax plan cannot work, beyond political expediency, is that, having failed themselves to grow the economy, they are defining economic growth out of the equation. They’ve forgotten, or hope you’ve forgotten, that the American economy can grow faster. Or, in Romney’s words, that “We don’t have to live like this.”
Increased private sector economic growth is what makes the Romney plan work. Indeed, that’s the whole point of the plan, which economist Harvey Rosen of Princeton University notes:
"Relatively little has been said about the possible effects of the Romney proposal on economic growth. This is curious because increasing growth is the motivation for the proposal in the first place."
Rosen has done an analysis of Romney’s tax plan, and he concludes:
". . . under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."
And we get all the benefits of increased economic growth as a result.
As we learned from John F. Kennedy in the 1960s and from Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the key to economic growth is cutting rates and updating the tax code to reflect today’s economy, rather than the economy of 20 years ago.
Which is what Romney/Ryan propose, and which Obama/Biden ridicule.
Carter didn’t get it, either. Of Course It Can Work > IPI Issues > Institute for Policy Innovation
That’s the snapshot.
I’ll take the Princeton guys opinion. If you have any inclination to research the details. Here’s his 17 page paper on the issue. https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf
Allow me to pass on some additional facts:
70% of ALL spending is consumer…I do not care if you are Ziggy Belcher or Bill Gates, take a dollar from them and give it to the govt at any level and they have 1 less dollar to spend…yea Gates has more dollars, but he now has 1 less and you cannot avoid that fact.
The rich now pay more than 60% of ALL taxes paid. Now comes the real rub…they are running out of money to pay in taxes and still have money to invest, we have squeezed them to the point they are no longer starting, growing, buying businesses, business create JOBS, ask the 23 million Americans out of work. I am not expanding my business because I do not know what the nut job in the White House will do if he gets reelected. I will tell you this, if he does he will call it a “mandate” and he will make the past 4 years look GOOD>
HARD FACT: The ONLY way you can turn around and turn on a countries economy is to unleash the buying power of consumers and in order to do that they must have DISPOSABLE income. You know money over and above what it takes to maintain the household and family. Govt can NOT dump enough money into an economy to make it happen ask Dimmy Karter, the Germans, Greece, Spain and a slew of country’s across the globe and thru history.
The rich: What happens when they are REALLY rich, $100 M and beyond. They buy 3, 4, 5 and more houses, they have 52 car garages (Jay Leno) and Jay has 2-3 FULL TIME employees just taking care of his cars and I am not talking washing and waxing at $10 bucks an hour…my guess is these are near 6 figure folks who can machine a new engine from scratch. Other guys buy $100 M buck yachts, like the guy from Chicago. Gates has a near 50,000 sq ft house and still adding on…buddy of mine worked there at the Gates home for 3 years, he was knocking down over $60k per year as the estate manager + expenses, about $80k total.
Now some things I will support. The guy from Chicago with ther $100 M yacht ‘the Lind Lou’, well he contracted with a GERMAN company to build it and it spends most of its time outside the US, where he has other homes. OK, fine, then he gets ZERO write down on yachts, travel and any money he spends outside the US he just sucks up it. But do not blame him for taking tax deducts the GOVT has given him, change the tax laws and the deducts for those making more than xxx on money not spent directly in the US…
I will give you another one: Any money over a certain amount that is not actively being invested is taxed at a high rate. Like my buddy that was a CEO of a corp, it got sold and he was bought out of his contract. He picked up a check for a bit over $3M after taxes. He took the $ put it in the bank and lives off the interest and plays golf. That money just sits there, not being actively invested its doing us not good. Same goes for the many folks who live off tax free muni bonds, not bad for a $600,000+ per year income for a lady in Dallas.
Point being lets not tax the rich and take away their ability to grow and hire, but focus on those that have large sums of money that is not actively invested in business. Change the tax law to favor CAPITALISM, not hoarding and not socialism like 'bammy is doing.
- Rosen bases his estimates on a study that assumes full employment.
- Rosen assumes GDP growth of 3%. Current economic growth averaged over the last four years is around 0.4%, requiring Romney to raise economic growth 2.6 percentage points to get 3% economic growth over his presidency. That kind of comeback has not occurred since World War II, and several economists feel it is impossible.
Are these “plausible assumptions”?