Princeton Economist Professor: Obama is misquoting me on Romney's tax plan.

[24champ]

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 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.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_653917.html

[pricejj]

Good find. Obama's house of cards continues to fall.

He could not stop repeating his "$5T tax" mantra during the last debate, which has been proven to be completely false.

If he mentions that again, Romney can cite the author, and make him look more foolish than Obama has already made himself look.

[Rohirrim]

So, a bunch of right wing think tanks think Romney's plan "could" work and the Princeton economics professor thinks it "might" work.

What a stirring endorsement.

Look. It's ****ing supply side bull**** all over again. Doesn't work. Voodoo economics. Like Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So, a bunch of right wing think tanks think Romney's plan "could" work and the Princeton economics professor thinks it "might" work.

What a stirring endorsement.

Look. It's ****ing supply side bull**** all over again. Doesn't work. Voodoo economics. Like Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Obama's plan is to follow the European plan, and turn the U.S. into a Social Democracy.

Europe is in a deepening recession due to their ever-increasing taxes, and debt-accumulating policies.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Obama's plan is to follow the European plan, and turn the U.S. into a Social Democracy.

Europe is in a deepening recession due to their ever-increasing taxes, and debt-accumulating policies.

So supply side economics will fix everything?

[Requiem]

We could only hope to be as cool as Sweden.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So, a bunch of right wing think tanks think Romney's plan "could" work and the Princeton economics professor thinks it "might" work.

What a stirring endorsement.

The Princeton Economist says it is "plausible" and Romney's tax plan doesn't raise taxes on the middle class, an erroneous claim by the Obama Campaign.

I don't know why the left always assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. Boggles the mind.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by 24champ

The Princeton Economist says it is "plausible" and Romney's tax plan doesn't raise taxes on the middle class, an erroneous claim by the Obama Campaign.

I don't know why the left always assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. Boggles the mind.

Because look around. This is the result of 30 years of tax breaks for the rich. The biggest mistake that happened in this country is when Reagan convinced a bunch of people that the government is our enemy. What factor created the greatest growth in our history? Investments in infrastructure, education and science. Not giving billionaires more billions to stash offshore.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So supply side economics will fix everything?

The government must fulfill it's obligations to the American people.

What is the government's role? It is the defining question of this election.

That's easy, the U.S. government's role is as defined by the U.S. Constitution, a document which limits the scope of the federal government and has produced the most free, and prosperous civilization in the history of the planet.

A Constitutional amendment that restricts debt accumulation is necessary so that U.S. citizens may retain their wealth and economic freedom.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Because look around. This is the result of 30 years of tax breaks for the rich. The biggest mistake that happened in this country is when Reagan convinced a bunch of people that the government is our enemy. What factor created the greatest growth in our history? Investments in infrastructure, education and science. Not giving billionaires more billions to stash offshore.

Eliminating the current tax rates for those who make over $250,000 per year would only reduce the $1.2T deficit by 5%.

The deficit would still be $1.14T. If we do the arithmetic, Obama's solution is no solution at all.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Because look around. This is the result of 30 years of tax breaks for the rich. The biggest mistake that happened in this country is when Reagan convinced a bunch of people that the government is our enemy. What factor created the greatest growth in our history? Investments in infrastructure, education and science. Not giving billionaires more billions to stash offshore.

Invest with what money? You want to borrow more money from China? We're 16 trillion dollars in the hole and running a trillion dollar deficit every year!

I'm not saying that infrastructure, science and education are pointless things. We're already "investing" in those areas. We've spent 100 billion dollars on infrastructure in the last stimulus bill, and we're nearing a trillion dollars on education spending on an annual basis.

What we need is a pro growth tax reform that jump starts the economy, allowing small business to hire more people because this is the worst and slowest economic recovery in American history. It's pathetic.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by 24champ

The Princeton Economist says it is "plausible" and Romney's tax plan doesn't raise taxes on the middle class, an erroneous claim by the Obama Campaign.

I don't know why the left always assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. Boggles the mind.

It is feasible that pro-growth tax reform can spur economic growth if certain conditions are in place, like extremely high tax rate, suffocating regulations, lack of capital leading and other tight economic condition, but that economic environment does not in the United States. The proposed Rommel/Ryan economic policy only work in the fantasy word of Ayn Rand devotee.

It lack of solid demand that causing the slow economy, not anything else. And the best way to fix that demand issue is to ensure the middle class is employed, stable and growing.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Because look around. This is the result of 30 years of tax breaks for the rich. The biggest mistake that happened in this country is when Reagan convinced a bunch of people that the government is our enemy. What factor created the greatest growth in our history? Investments in infrastructure, education and science. Not giving billionaires more billions to stash offshore.

We do need to invest in infrastructure, the highways and bridges in the US are a mess. When this plan worked we had people in bread lines and desperate for any job they could get. They were willing to work long hours, live in man-camps and follow the work

Trying to rebuild the infrastructure with the unions on the back of contractors would be an impossible tack. Just finding a work force today that would be willing to follow the job trail and work under harsh conditions in the elements would be impossible……. unless they are Mexicans.

[barryr]

But don't forget, it's Romney who lies while Obama is such a gentleman and is above doing such a thing Liberals will never believe raising taxes on everybody is a bad thing, but they like to do it in subtle ways so people don't realize they are being screwed until it is too late to do anything about it. They instead like to claim their opponents will do that, knowing most people don't agree with that, which is why they have to raise taxes in ways where people don't see it since this is all about redistribution.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by elsid13

It is feasible that pro-growth tax reform can spur economic growth if certain conditions are in place, like extremely high tax rate, suffocating regulations, lack of capital leading and other tight economic condition, but that economic environment does not in the United States. The proposed Rommel/Ryan economic policy only work in the fantasy word of Ayn Rand devotee.

It lack of solid demand that causing the slow economy, not anything else. And the best way to fix that demand issue is to ensure the middle class is employed, stable and growing.

And in the last four years middle class Americans have seen their paychecks shrink to the tune of 5 percent and their overall wealth has shrunk by 26 percent according to PEW research center. Furthermore, Middle class Americans have had to deal with higher food prices, higher gas prices. Somehow its supposed to get better in the next four years under Obama?

Secondly, "ensuring that they are employed". Hmm, well Obama has a tax plan to create 1 trillion in revenue, that will undoubtedly put 800k more people out of work, as suggested by Romer.

A powerful analysis by President Barack Obama’s first Chair of his Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) indicates the President’s proposed tax increases would kill the economic recovery and throw nearly 1 million Americans out of work. Those are the extraordinary implications of academic research by Christina D. Romer, who chaired the CEA from January 28, 2009 – September 3, 2010. In a paper entitled: “The Macrcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes” published by the prestigious American Economic Review in June 2010 (during her tenure at the White House), she stated: “In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”

In his 2013 budget, President Obama proposes $103 billion in 2013 tax increases, including $83 billion of higher income taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year, or about 0.65% of GDP. Using the Romer baseline estimate, that would reduce real GDP by 2 percentage points over the next 10 quarters. Based on the general relationship between economic growth and unemployment, such a fall in output implies a loss of more than 800,000 jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesk...-the-recovery/

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by elsid13

It is feasible that pro-growth tax reform can spur economic growth if certain conditions are in place, like extremely high tax rate, suffocating regulations, lack of capital leading and other tight economic condition, but that economic environment does not in the United States.
It lack of solid demand that causing the slow economy, not anything else. And the best way to fix that demand issue is to ensure the middle class is employed, stable and growing.

Really? Then how do you explain the increase in consumer spending resulting from the 2012 Social Security tax rate cut from 6.2% to 4.2% (which was the wrong tax to cut, since it further adds to SS's insolvency, but that's besides the point).

And if you attempt to say that the tax cut was insignificant, then why did Obama do it?

The answer is, every single time you cut taxes, it puts money in the pockets of people who will either spend it, or invest it. Obama knows that, and that's why he cut the SS tax...to spur the economy.

[pricejj]

The simple fact is that Obamacare is a huge looming tax burden on the middle-class.

Either you pay the Obamacare tax directly to the IRS, directly to an insurance company for unecessary, expensive health-insurance that you don't need, or indirectly through rising premiums created by the the over-utilization of healthcare services that Obamacare creates through taxpayer subsidies, and so-called "free" products and services for a select few.

U.S. taxpayer spending on healthcare has already risen 23% since Obamacare was enacted.

[Mr.Meanie]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Really? Then how do you explain the increase in consumer spending resulting from the 2012 Social Security tax rate cut from 6.2% to 4.2% (which was the wrong tax to cut, since it further adds to SS's insolvency, but that's besides the point).

And if you attempt to say that the tax cut was insignificant, then why did Obama do it?

The answer is, every single time you cut taxes, it puts money in the pockets of people who will either spend it, or invest it. Obama knows that, and that's why he cut the SS tax...to spur the economy.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. His point was that you start reaching the point of diminishing returns the lower your effective tax rates already are. For example, if your effective tax rate was 60% and it was slashed in half to 30%, there would be a huge boom of money that would flow into the economy. However if your effective tax rate is 10% and is cut to 5%, the effect is a lot less significant, although you would still see some effect. And what if the tax rate is near zero? There's only so much you can do with taxes, and considering our tax rates are at historic lows that argument isn't as powerful as it might have been in the 50's or even in the 80's.

There has to be an intelligent balance between the tax rates and the overall revenue, otherwise you run budget deficits like we have for the past decade.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by elsid13

It lack of solid demand that causing the slow economy, not anything else. And the best way to fix that demand issue is to ensure the middle class is employed, stable and growing.

Why would anyone spend any money with such an uncertain economic future created by piling debt and the spectre of raising tax rates?

Bernanke and Obama have tried to fool people, with their Zero Interest Rate Policy, and printing dollars to actually create negative interest...in hopes that people will spend their money, as the value of the dollar erodes.

So while you may claim that individual U.S. income tax rates are not prohibitive to growth, which is patently false, who's to say anyone will have a job tomorrow?

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Mr.Meanie

There's only so much you can do with taxes, and considering our tax rates are at historic lows that argument isn't as powerful as it might have been in the 50's or even in the 80's.

There has to be an intelligent balance between the tax rates and the overall revenue, otherwise you run budget deficits like we have for the past decade.

The U.S. Corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. And like I stated earlier, if you increase the tax rate on people making over $250,000 per year, you only trim 5% off the deficit.

Current levels of federal spending are at a historic high (24% of GDP). Reducing federal spending to the 30-year average (~18%), would reduce the deficit to almost ZERO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Because look around. This is the result of 30 years of tax breaks for the rich. The biggest mistake that happened in this country is when Reagan convinced a bunch of people that the government is our enemy. What factor created the greatest growth in our history? Investments in infrastructure, education and science. Not giving billionaires more billions to stash offshore.

Exactly.

Right-wingers have demonstrated time and time again they are incapable of learning from history.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The U.S. Corporate tax rate is the highest in the world.

This is BS insofar as you are looking at the nominal rate and ignoring the effective rate.

Most U.S. corporations pay no taxes at all after exploiting loopholes available to them.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Good find. Obama's house of cards continues to fall.

He could not stop repeating his "$5T tax" mantra during the last debate, which has been proven to be completely false.

If he mentions that again, Romney can cite the author, and make him look more foolish than Obama has already made himself look.

Your a stupid ****, well known fact.

5 trillion in tax cuts via 20% reduction in tax rates.

All the deductions in the world including deductions for the middle class won't cover it.

Truth is we have already done this with Bush tax cuts yet you stupid fools need it explained to you over and over.

IS THERE ANY DOUBT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY.?

LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE AND HISTORY HAVE WENT ON VACATION WITH THIS GUY AND YNUK, LONESTAR AND MOST REPUBLICANS.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

This is BS insofar as you are looking at the nominal rate and ignoring the effective rate.

Most U.S. corporations pay no taxes at all after exploiting loopholes available to them.

One of the largest companies in the US......General Electric paid nothing in taxes a couple years back.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The simple fact is that Obamacare is a huge looming tax burden on the middle-class.

Either you pay the Obamacare tax directly to the IRS, directly to an insurance company for unecessary, expensive health-insurance that you don't need, or indirectly through rising premiums created by the the over-utilization of healthcare services that Obamacare creates through taxpayer subsidies, and so-called "free" products and services for a select few.

U.S. taxpayer spending on healthcare has already risen 23% since Obamacare was enacted.

You have nothing to prove that healthcare will cost us anything but we know for sure Bush tax cuts for the rich and Romney's 5 trillion in more taxes and 2 trillion in defense spending damn sure will.