Romney's 6 "credible" studies of tax situation

[celestemekent]

Fox Host Challenges ‘Hardly Non-Partisan Studies’ Romney Cites To Defend Tax Plan

By Rebecca Leber on Oct 14, 2012 at 11:40 am

For more than a month, Mitt Romney has cited six debunked studies to support his mathematically impossible plan to cut tax rates by 20 percent, while balancing the budget without raising taxes on the middle class. On Sunday, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie on the credibility of these six studies, noting that each of them have serious issues:

GILLESPIE: Six different studies have said this is entirely doable.
WALLACE: Those are very questionable. Some of them are blogs, some of them are from AEI, an independent group.
GILLESPIE: These are very credible sources.
WALLACE: One of them is a blog from a guy who was a top adviser for George W. Bush. These are hardly non-partisan studies.
GILLESPIE: Look Chris these AEI and other studies are very credible sources of analysis
​

Two of the six studies are Wall Street Journal editorials that repeat familiar Republican talking points without crunching any numbers. Wallace pointed out a third study from former Bush adviser Harvey Rosen, which assumes Romney’s plan would generate enough economic growth to pay for the revenue loss, the same tax logic used by George W. Bush. Yet another one of the six studies is a white paper from the Romney campaign itself. Even an AEI tax expert suggested Romney’s math wouldn’t work, saying “he’s going to need to cut rates significantly less than 20 percent if he wants to honor his other goals.”
But there is one study the Romney campaign hasn’t used. The Tax Policy Center found that Romney would need to raise taxes on the middle class even if he closed every single tax loophole for the wealthy. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy and an adviser to the 2008 McCain campaign, called that study the “definitive” one on Romney’s plan


So if actually none of the "studies" are actual studies but partisan blogs and lobbying groups, it is clear that Romney will not be able to reduce the deficit/debt, with his tax plan. Then Obama was telling the truth on the first debate. Secondly it seems that the republicans dont really care about reducing the deficit/debt they just want to do it in their own way. Which other issues will turn out this same way when the truth finally comes out?

 

[OFM]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Nautilus]

romneytaxplan.com

 

[djness]

Fox Host Challenges ‘Hardly Non-Partisan Studies’ Romney Cites To Defend Tax Plan

By Rebecca Leber on Oct 14, 2012 at 11:40 am

For more than a month, Mitt Romney has cited six debunked studies to support his mathematically impossible plan to cut tax rates by 20 percent, while balancing the budget without raising taxes on the middle class. On Sunday, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie on the credibility of these six studies, noting that each of them have serious issues:

GILLESPIE: Six different studies have said this is entirely doable.
WALLACE: Those are very questionable. Some of them are blogs, some of them are from AEI, an independent group.
GILLESPIE: These are very credible sources.
WALLACE: One of them is a blog from a guy who was a top adviser for George W. Bush. These are hardly non-partisan studies.
GILLESPIE: Look Chris these AEI and other studies are very credible sources of analysis
​

Two of the six studies are Wall Street Journal editorials that repeat familiar Republican talking points without crunching any numbers. Wallace pointed out a third study from former Bush adviser Harvey Rosen, which assumes Romney’s plan would generate enough economic growth to pay for the revenue loss, the same tax logic used by George W. Bush. Yet another one of the six studies is a white paper from the Romney campaign itself. Even an AEI tax expert suggested Romney’s math wouldn’t work, saying “he’s going to need to cut rates significantly less than 20 percent if he wants to honor his other goals.”
But there is one study the Romney campaign hasn’t used. The Tax Policy Center found that Romney would need to raise taxes on the middle class even if he closed every single tax loophole for the wealthy. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy and an adviser to the 2008 McCain campaign, called that study the “definitive” one on Romney’s plan


So if actually none of the "studies" are actual studies but partisan blogs and lobbying groups, it is clear that Romney will not be able to reduce the deficit/debt, with his tax plan. Then Obama was telling the truth on the first debate. Secondly it seems that the republicans dont really care about reducing the deficit/debt they just want to do it in their own way. Which other issues will turn out this same way when the truth finally comes out?

I voted for obama the first time, he has done such a exceptional job with his push for change that I think I will probably not be voting for him again.

 

[celestemekent]

djness do you honestly believe that Romney's tax plan will do anything but inflate the national debt and deficit?
Do you honestly believe that Romney has your best interest at heart?

OR do you hate Obama so much that you are willing to take anything but Obama?

 

[celestemekent]

Romney Cites Study Based On Repealing Almost All Middle Class Tax Breaks To Bolster His Tax Plan

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 19, 2012 at 9:30 am

Mitt Romney has been desperately trying to refute a study by the Tax Policy Center showing that he can’t mathematically achieve his goals of reducing income tax rates while shielding the middle class from a tax increase and not adding to the deficit. If Romney is committed to his rate reduction and deficit neutrality, he would have to raise middle class taxes by $2,000, even under the most generous assumptions.
Romney has been pointing to “six studies” that he claims show that his tax plan work. However, those “studies” (which are mostly blog posts and op-eds) show no such thing.
So now the Romney campaign is touting a 2006 study from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation that he claims vindicates his approach, telling Roll Call the study shows “how a ‘Romney-style tax plan’ could bolster growth.” According to the study, tax reform that eliminates deductions and loopholes and reduces income tax rates will slightly increase economic growth over a decade. But the study assumes that nearly all middle class tax breaks — including those for children, mortgages, and employer contributions for health care — are repealed in their entirety:

Under the proposal, all personal exemptions, itemized deductions, personal credits except for the earned income credit, and all above-the-line adjustments to income except for retirement savings deductions and the deduction for self employment taxes would be repealed. The largest categories of deductions repealed are present-law deductions for home mortgage interest expenses, State and local taxes, and charitable contributions. In addition, the exclusions for certain employee fringe benefits, such as employer contributions for health and life insurance, would be repealed. The standard deduction would remain.
​

The study also found that such a plan would result in the “redistribution” of income tax liability from high-income earners to the middle class. And the promised job growth is only between 1 and 2 percent over ten years (one to two million jobs), while Romney promises that his tax plan will create seven million jobs over four years.
Romney’s claims about job creation under his tax plan are almost entirely fabricated. An economic adviser for both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations said this week that Romney’s tax plan won’t create jobs.


Think Progress reports

 

[teuful_hunden]

djness do you honestly believe that Romney's tax plan will do anything but inflate the national debt and deficit?
Do you honestly believe that Romney has your best interest at heart?

OR do you hate Obama so much that you are willing to take anything but Obama?

yes because taking what should be state policies and turning them into blanket national policies fits so nicely within the constitution right?

 

[celestemekent]

I assume you are referring to the ACA. In which case you have accepted the Romney arguments who without the slightest bit of analysis and spewed them back out for others consumption. There is enough flexibility in the Romneycare package so that ANY state would benefit from it and frankly if it is nearly as good as it is in Massachusetts then I want it in my state too.

There is absolutely no inherent State level argument to be made, certainly no constitutional clause which demands it be done on a state by state basis, just the vacuous argument without substance.

Frankly it is a very conservative document filled with ideas from republicans. As a liberal I can point to things that I would have done differently. This is not in any way a government "take over" of the health insurance! That would be the case if we had universal coverage which this is not. In fact it is the hospital industry which has suffered the most without the ACA.

So lets set Obamacare aside and get back to Romney's fake budget which in fact will not balance the budget for 50 years. $4.8 trillion in tax cuts and at most $1.7 trillion in loopholes closed (that is IF he can get congress to close them ever.) The fact is that Romney refuses to even say for sure which loop holes will be closed because he cant guarantee that any of them will be closed unless he loses them FIRST then gets the tax breaks done.

 

[djness]

djness do you honestly believe that Romney's tax plan will do anything but inflate the national debt and deficit?
Do you honestly believe that Romney has your best interest at heart?

OR do you hate Obama so much that you are willing to take anything but Obama?

Hate is a pretty strong word. One that I don't think I used thank you very much.

If there was a third better option I would vote for that person...as it is neither of the two appeal to me that often,b ut since I think everyone should vote I will decide between one of them

Also ''Fast and furious''...cmon...really...SOMEBODY needs to go to jail over that.

 

[djness]

iit seems like every single article you post is against republicans or conservative organizations in general.

How about independenting it up a little bit. The democrats/liberals aren't riding spotless white horses.

It's like moment of faith all over...

 

[teuful_hunden]

I assume you are referring to the ACA. In which case you have accepted the Romney arguments who without the slightest bit of analysis and spewed them back out for others consumption. There is enough flexibility in the Romneycare package so that ANY state would benefit from it and frankly if it is nearly as good as it is in Massachusetts then I want it in my state too.

There is absolutely no inherent State level argument to be made, certainly no constitutional clause which demands it be done on a state by state basis, just the vacuous argument without substance.

Frankly it is a very conservative document filled with ideas from republicans. As a liberal I can point to things that I would have done differently. This is not in any way a government "take over" of the health insurance! That would be the case if we had universal coverage which this is not. In fact it is the hospital industry which has suffered the most without the ACA.

So lets set Obamacare aside and get back to Romney's fake budget which in fact will not balance the budget for 50 years. $4.8 trillion in tax cuts and at most $1.7 trillion in loopholes closed (that is IF he can get congress to close them ever.) The fact is that Romney refuses to even say for sure which loop holes will be closed because he cant guarantee that any of them will be closed unless he loses them FIRST then gets the tax breaks done.

I was actually referring to the ninth and tenth amendment which makes a lot of government programs unconstitutional

 

[celestemekent]

SOTUS has already ruled that the ACA (Obamacare) IS in fact constitutional and that is the final word on it. Deal with it and grow up.

 

[BADDOG]

Hi all GBU

Not being in nor from the USA ,,,

,,here in UK most look at Mitt ,,and think wheres the new war going to be
,,,,,and no one here wants any part of a new war ,,,,But if Mitt gets into power there will be one ,,,,thats just my first point


2ed no one can offer 20% cut in taxs for everyone ,,,no one ,,,
its like offering candy to a kid ,,,we all want the candy ,,,but who will pay ???
for every bit of candy offered there a bill to pay ,,,, and USA will pay for it big time

,,,,, you who are Rep,,, will not see this nor go along with this ,,,, but remember this when you go to war

,,,, we are already hearing that Iran can reach the USA with long range rockets ,,,,***and its a lie they cant***,,,,,,

Remember all the weapons of mass destruction that IRAQ had !!!! yet they have never been found but that was the lie sold to the world under Bush & Blair


We are hearing the same lies now about Iran and the like
Mitt says openly he will spend 2 trillion on the army ,,,why spend that if your not planing a war ??


i'm from the UK as i have said but between Mitt and Obama its like a bad movie ** Dumb and Dumber **

surely the USA has better people to lead it than these 2


GBU ALL


BADDOG

 

[BADDOG]

Hi All GBU

LIES: Romney Advisor Ed Gillespie Called Out By Fox News' Chris Wallace - YouTube

Please take time out to have a look at this link its from Fox

i think you will find it amazing !!!

GBU

BADDOG

 

[teuful_hunden]

SOTUS has already ruled that the ACA (Obamacare) IS in fact constitutional and that is the final word on it. Deal with it and grow up.

Yeah and they also ruled in favor of separation of church and state by using the first ammendment and the miranda rights because "everybody is doing it already" so I'm not to keen on the supreme courts rulings. however we want to play grow up games I hope you realize that obamacare simply jacks up tax rates to provide federal funding for it's healthcare that or the overall level of healthcare will fall or perhaps both will happen.

 

[JimJimmers]

SOTUS has already ruled that the ACA (Obamacare) IS in fact constitutional and that is the final word on it. Deal with it and grow up.

SOTUS has already ruled that racial segregation IS in fact constitutional and that is the final word on it. Deal with it and grow up.

Have you ever heard of Plessy Vs. Ferguson, Celeste? Your childish arguments are wearing thin.

P.S. You are REALLY reminding me of another user I used to disagree with in the news forum, who has since been banned.

 

[Walkinginfaith]

When we start to turn our cheek to who God is and what he stands for, we will reap what we have sown. With FACTS we know what the past 4 years have accomplished, and we see Romney with HOPE, ..... as Christians we always have HOPE, and we rest in knowing God is in control .
Our country is divided and unfortunately I can see riots breaking out if this election does not favor the re elected. Yet if he wins we are doomed even more so on a larger scale... I am reminded of what we are dealing with here. Who ever wins- I am reminded that Fire refines the gold. And God is in control .
1 Peter 1:7 These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
For those who Love the Lord, we will take refuge under his wing and he will protect us and give us comfort as mentioned in Psalms 91.

I am reminded Gods plan is perfect and his timing is perfect.... there is perfect timing for everything.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-15, A Time for Everything....10 I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves. 11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart......
I am reminded Matt 24:22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
I am reminded the GATE is narrow...... Matt 7 :14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it..
I will continue to pray for our country and that Gods will be done. Amen not my will but his Will Be Done.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Look, it's easy. It all comes down to which economic plan you support.

If you think the way to economic growth is by allowing businesses to run with minimal restrictions, low taxes, and then cross your fingers and hope that with such low taxes they'll stay in the US and hire more people (even though historically they've never done this in the past), then vote for Romney. That's his plan. He'll cut spending, eliminate social programs from education to health, and the poor will get poorer and the rich richer. If you're all for that, vote for him.

If you think the way to economic growth is by stimulating the economy, not just throwing money at the poor, but providing programs that give the unemployed real job skills while at the same time improve the nation's infrastructure (that's in desperate need of improvements), then vote for Obama. That's his plan. This is the same plan utilized by Roosevelt in the 40s that got us out of the Great Depression, and it has already proved it works. Everyone benefits -- the poor get skills and jobs, the middle- and upper-class get a stronger economy, a more educated and skilled workforce from which to hire, and everyone's happy.

I honestly don't understand why it's such a close race. It seems beyond obvious to me.