Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan

[ptif219]

More lies from Obama because he has nothing to run on

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html


But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math-behind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.html) on Romney's tax plan:

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.

[truthmatters]

but he said in the debate he wont repeal it all

[Stuck_In_California]

I didn't need a Princeton Economist to tell me that Obama is a liar.
I've known that since 2008

[GrassrootsConservative]

but he said in the debate he wont repeal it all

Yep. He's going to keep everything that's not ridiculously Libtarded.

[coolwalker]

There is a huge power behind Obama...one that wants America to be destroyed internally. Gosh, sounds an awful lot like a communist conspiracy doesn't it!

[ptif219]

but he said in the debate he wont repeal it all

He will repeal the tax increases

[Stuck_In_California]

but he said in the debate he wont repeal it all

That is no different then what Congressional Republicans said during the big debate. They wanted a piecemeal approach, single one-page laws to address each single issue that all could agree on, such as pre-existing conditions, keeping your insurance if you leave a job, etc. Romney basically said the same thing.

[truthmatters]

How many times has robmoney said "on day one Im repealing Obamacare"?

[GrumpyDog]

The Bush tax cuts, DID NOT EXPIRE, in 2010, because the Republican Tea Party house refused to accept any compromise to allow only those earning below 250K to keep the tax cut, while letting the Bush tax cut expire for those making above 250K. Thus Obama and Democrats agreed to extend the tax cuts across the board, to retain the Middleclass tax cuts.

Since the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue from the above 250K/year& up crowd by 1.8 Trillion over a span from 2002 to 2009, ie: over 250 Billion/year, AND at the SAME time INCREASED the budget for the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq by another 250 Billion/year (which was left out in the accounting), the result was a whopping 500 BILLION added deficit PER year. That additional expense, plus the tax cuts, plus the normal increases necessary for Social Security, Medcare, and the additional Prescription Drug benefits, added up to a 10 Trillion dollar debt by end of 2008. In effect, Bush added 5 Trillion to the 5 Trillion debt handed to him from Clinton.

So now comes Obama, and on top of that 5 Trillion debt handed off to him, is faced with the near depression at end of Bush term, and having to effect a bailout from the start of another 1 Trillion dollars at the get go. So beginning 2009, Obama already is faced with 6 Trillion dollar debt, AND a war STILL going on in Iraq, STILL costing 250 Billion/year, AND the continued loss of 250 BILLION/year revenue from the Bush Tax cut for millionaires,. AND a huge monthy loss of jobs at a rate of 800 000/month.

Now since the Bush Tax Cut had a sunset provision which could not allow a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat president to repeal that Cut until 2010, that meant ANOTHER 500 Billion of lost revenue from 2008 to 2010, NOT due to Obama or Democrats.

IF in 2010, the Democrats had retained control of Congress, with sufficient majority, then Obama plan to let Bush Tax cut expire ONLY for those earning 250K and up, while retaining the cut for Middleclass, WOULD HAVE BEEN implemented, thus restoring a POSITIVE revenue stream of 250 Billion/year to the Fed.Budget.

In ADDITION to that, the estate tax , inheritance tax, and Capital gains tax would have been restored to levels similar to the Clinton administration, which would have added further revenue, in all probability approx another 100 Billion/year at least.

UNFORTUNATELY, the Republican Tea Party prevented ALL of that. To that travesty was added the Obama BIG MISTAKE of concentrating on a Universal Health Care plan in the middle of the Great Recession. On top off ALL of this, the continuing OUTSOURCING of jobs by Corporations which NEITHER party seems to care about, and the continuation of NAFTA, which NEITHER party seems to care about, has contributed now to ANOTHER 6 TRILLION added to the National Debt which is now a WHOPPING 16 TRILLION!!!

SO... Reagan is to blame for handing off a 4 Trillion dollar debt to George HW Bush.., GHW Bush is to blame starting a war with Saddam, running up the Debt another 1 Trillion and handing off a 5 Trillion Debt to Clinton. Clinton although not adding to the Debt, still handed off a 5 Trillion debt to GW Bush. Bush then ran up the Debt to 10 Trillion, then handed it to Obama. Obama then added another 6 Trillion.

And now.. ROMNEY, the great economist, tells us that despite a 16 Trillion dollar debt, that his plan will NOT let the Bush Tax cuts expire, not only NOT returning them to the Clinton 39.8% level, but will REDUCE them to 28%.

Romney CLAIMS that deductions and tax loopholes for the upper income (wealthy) will be eliminated, YET he does NOT say which ones. Nor does he say whether the estate tax and inheritance tax will remain in place, be eliminated, or be modified. He says one thing and then another concerning the Capital Gains tax rate. Will it be reduced to 0% for Middleclass only, while raising it to 30% for the wealthy (where it has been historically)? Or is he suggesting reduction from 15% for upper income, which will further reduce tax revenue?

If he is going to reduce taxes "across the board" by 20%, then we are talking about ANOTHER 200 BILLION loss of tax revenue in addition to the ALREADY -$250 Billion/year from the current Bush Tax Cut extension. AND, on TOP of all that, Romney wants to ADD at least 1 TRILLION MORE/year to the Federal Budget for Military expenditures.

There really is only ONE true way to get the deficit and the debt cut significantly and that is (believe it or not), exactly what is going to happen in the so called "Cliff" scenario that all these MOTHER FING politicians say is the WORST solution. Scheduled for Dec 2012, IN fact, it is the BEST solution, because if FORCES across the board cuts in BOTH the bloated military budget AND the bloated Social spending programs, AND at the same time, the Bush Tax Cuts FINALLY end, and at least 250 BILLION/year of tax revenue is restored.

ITS PAINFUL, but those enjoying benefits, whether they be Capital gains, or Government checks, gotta give something, cause there is NO MAGICAL VOODOO economics despite what either the Trickle Down supply siders say, or the Tax more and Spend more Socialists say.

Okay, I am done now.

P.S. Feel free to critique my analysis, as this #$% is damn complicated. This is a compilation from my own experiences, memory, and from an overview from following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Increase_Prevention_and_Reconciliation_Act_of_ 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

[Deadwood]

How many times has robmoney said "on day one Im repealing Obamacare"?

Now there you go again.


Yes, he has said that.


But you mislead when you do not complete the trought.

I guess when you're being paid a few cents per post by the DNC you can't take the time to be honest....it's simply easier to call everyone you disagree with a liar and move on to the next few cents.

[Peter1469]

Not collecting taxes does not add to the deficit. Spending adds to the deficit. Control yourselves.

[GrumpyDog]

Not collecting taxes does not add to the deficit. Spending adds to the deficit. Control yourselves.

Yes, but Reagan & Congress ran up National Debt to 4 Trillion. George HW Bush & Congress, added 1 Trillion more, thus handing off a 5 Trillion debt to Clinton. Clinton, & Congress were able NOT to add to the National Debt and by end of Clintons term had reduced the Federal Budget, AND raised tax revenue, thus generating a surplus /each yearly Fed budget. If that trend had continued, then each succeeding yearly surplus of around 200 Billion, could have been applied to reduce the 5 Trillion National Debt over the next 8 years of the Bush admin. That would have reduced the National Debt by 1.6 Trillion, ending Bush term with a National Debt down to 3.4 Trillion.

Instead, Bush got the 911 event, then started the war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan followed by expanding the war to invade Iraq. That ADDED at least 200 Billion/year to the yearly Federal Budget. On top of that, the Bush Tax cuts reduced the Clinton high end tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, in effect LOSING approx. at least 200 Billion/year in tax revenue. Multiplied by 8 years, that was at least 4 Trillion more added to the already 5 Trillion National Debt Bush began with. Coupled with the crash at the end of Bush term, the Bush admin. handed off to Obama a 10 Trillion National Debt,and an economy losing 800,000 jobs per month.

As I already explained, Obama thus began his term having to spend 1 Trillion up front just to prevent a total collapse, which means he begins his term with an 11 Trillion Dollar Debt, a Bush Tax cut that has a sunset provision preventing repeal until 2010, which is losing 200 Billion of tax revenue/year, and an ongoing war in Iraq that is still costing 200 Billion/year.

But I am all to willing to give Obama as much blame as the other US Presidents and Congress, for not being able to adjust spending and tax revenue in the way Clinton and Congress did, to start producing yearly surpluses, which could then be applied to reducing the National Debt over time. Instead, Obama decided to embark on the great Universal Health Care, which caused the reaction in the Republican Party that lead to the creation of the Tea Party, which then captured the House in 2010. With Grovier Norquist as the leader, any tax revenue which might have been able to be recovered by letting the Bush Tax cuts expire was stopped cold. Thus the Bush Tax cuts DID NOT expire, because Obama and Democrats could not get Republicans to compromise on keeping just those cuts for Middleclass (below 250K), while letting it expire for those earning above 250K.

Obama and Democrat Congress, with lead from Senator Schumer then offered to Republicans a similar plan in which only those making 1 MILLION and up would have the Bush Tax cut expire, while keeping it in place for everyone else below 1 Million, and STILL the Republican/Norquist/Tea Party refused to compromise.


So really, if NEITHER party is willing compromise, then there is NO magical cure, no Voodoo economic plan that is going to reduce the now 16 Trillion dollar debt. So I say just let the ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS in the yearly Federal Budget begin, AND let the Bush Tax cuts expire, which will restore the upper tax level to the Clinton tax rate of 39.8%. Lets increase the Capital gains tax back to 28%. This is the most painful, but it forces both the Capital gains crowd as well as the Government check crowd to make some sacrifices.

[Mainecoons]

And are you also willing to index capital gains to inflation so that only real long term capital gains are taxed? Otherwise, it is mainly a tax on inflation.

BTW, how much money would that raise?

The problem is not taxes, the problem is spending.

[Peter1469]

Yes, but Reagan & Congress ran up National Debt to 4 Trillion. George HW Bush & Congress, added 1 Trillion more, thus handing off a 5 Trillion debt to Clinton. Clinton, & Congress were able NOT to add to the National Debt and by end of Clintons term had reduced the Federal Budget, AND raised tax revenue, thus generating a surplus /each yearly Fed budget. If that trend had continued, then each succeeding yearly surplus of around 200 Billion, could have been applied to reduce the 5 Trillion National Debt over the next 8 years of the Bush admin. That would have reduced the National Debt by 1.6 Trillion, ending Bush term with a National Debt down to 3.4 Trillion.

Instead, Bush got the 911 event, then started the war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan followed by expanding the war to invade Iraq. That ADDED at least 200 Billion/year to the yearly Federal Budget. On top of that, the Bush Tax cuts reduced the Clinton high end tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, in effect LOSING approx. at least 200 Billion/year in tax revenue. Multiplied by 8 years, that was at least 4 Trillion more added to the already 5 Trillion National Debt Bush began with. Coupled with the crash at the end of Bush term, the Bush admin. handed off to Obama a 10 Trillion National Debt,and an economy losing 800,000 jobs per month.

As I already explained, Obama thus began his term having to spend 1 Trillion up front just to prevent a total collapse, which means he begins his term with an 11 Trillion Dollar Debt, a Bush Tax cut that has a sunset provision preventing repeal until 2010, which is losing 200 Billion of tax revenue/year, and an ongoing war in Iraq that is still costing 200 Billion/year.

But I am all to willing to give Obama as much blame as the other US Presidents and Congress, for not being able to adjust spending and tax revenue in the way Clinton and Congress did, to start producing yearly surpluses, which could then be applied to reducing the National Debt over time. Instead, Obama decided to embark on the great Universal Health Care, which caused the reaction in the Republican Party that lead to the creation of the Tea Party, which then captured the House in 2010. With Grovier Norquist as the leader, any tax revenue which might have been able to be recovered by letting the Bush Tax cuts expire was stopped cold. Thus the Bush Tax cuts DID NOT expire, because Obama and Democrats could not get Republicans to compromise on keeping just those cuts for Middleclass (below 250K), while letting it expire for those earning above 250K.

Obama and Democrat Congress, with lead from Senator Schumer then offered to Republicans a similar plan in which only those making 1 MILLION and up would have the Bush Tax cut expire, while keeping it in place for everyone else below 1 Million, and STILL the Republican/Norquist/Tea Party refused to compromise.


So really, if NEITHER party is willing compromise, then there is NO magical cure, no Voodoo economic plan that is going to reduce the now 16 Trillion dollar debt. So I say just let the ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS in the yearly Federal Budget begin, AND let the Bush Tax cuts expire, which will restore the upper tax level to the Clinton tax rate of 39.8%. Lets increase the Capital gains tax back to 28%. This is the most painful, but it forces both the Capital gains crowd as well as the Government check crowd to make some sacrifices.

Obama did not "have" to spend money we did not have to prevent a crash. What Obama did was to turn your grandchildren into debt slaves by bailing out institutions that ought not have been bailed out. And we are still on the verge of collapse anyway. Just with more debt. Iceland is the model.

Regarding ending the tax cuts- what is your plan B if the economy further contracts and tax receipts go down?

[Stuck_In_California]

...........The problem is not taxes, the problem is spending.

I pretty much agree with you, although I would say that the f_cked up tax code that allows half of workers to pay no taxes sucks. We need a flat tax, and thus could put all the IRS pieces of sh_t in the unemplyment line where they belong.

[GrumpyDog]

Obama did not "have" to spend money we did not have to prevent a crash. What Obama did was to turn your grandchildren into debt slaves by bailing out institutions that ought not have been bailed out. And we are still on the verge of collapse anyway. Just with more debt. Iceland is the model.
Regarding ending the tax cuts- what is your plan B if the economy further contracts and tax receipts go down?




1.Plan Grumpy will work, if you cut Military Budget down to 400 Billion, which is where it should be. Do not need a 1.7 Trillion yearly budget, as proposed by Romney, nor even the current (2011) 712 Billion budget.

2.Let Bush tax cut expire, for those earning over 250 K/year, returning to Clinton era level of 39.6%

3.Keep the tax cut in place for those earning less that 250 K/year.

4.Pragmatically cut elements in the Federal Budget, across the board if possible, but not in a draconian decrease that is inhumane.

5.Return to the "Pay as you go" approach of the Clinton/Newt Congress.

6.The Ryan voucher program for Medicare MIGHT work, IF the voucher is means tested for each individuals income level. So the Millionaire gets a very small check, if any, while the impovershed person gets a bigger voucher. Couple this with some assurances for pre existing conditions cannot be denied plus bigger voucher if you were diagnosed in youth, and you got a workable plan.


7. Switch to Renewable fuel.Use the newest technology such as vertical stack controled environment farming (multi story building), to grow non edible vegetation that produces 5 times more ethanol than corn. Build the vertical stack farming units near to refinerys. . It will also eliminate costs for massive machinery and oil rigs. IE: Cost to build this new kind of infrastructure comes from the savings of 500 Billion from reducing the 1 Trillion/year Military budget. Plus the savings from not having to use more fuel to transport oil to the refinery using worldwide shipping lanes and massive expensive tanker ships.

8. Shut down coal plants, retrain the workers, to manage/build the newer infrastructure of energy production that uses solar, wind, and renewable fuel production. Offer these displaced workers also, opportunities to repair existing infrastructure, or be retrained in any other job, receiving free training assistance from government as they do so.

[Peter1469]

1.Plan Grumpy will work, if you cut Military Budget down to 400 Billion, which is where it should be. Do not need a 1.7 Trillion yearly budget, as proposed by Romney, nor even the current (2011) 712 Billion budget.

2.Let Bush tax cut expire, for those earning over 250 K/year, returning to Clinton era level of 39.6%

3.Keep the tax cut in place for those earning less that 250 K/year.

4.Pragmatically cut elements in the Federal Budget, across the board if possible, but not in a draconian decrease that is inhumane.

5.Return to the "Pay as you go" approach of the Clinton/Newt Congress.

6.The Ryan voucher program for Medicare MIGHT work, IF the voucher is means tested for each individuals income level. So the Millionaire gets a very small check, if any, while the impovershed person gets a bigger voucher. Couple this with some assurances for pre existing conditions cannot be denied plus bigger voucher if you were diagnosed in youth, and you got a workable plan.


7. Switch to Renewable fuel.Use the newest technology such as vertical stack controled environment farming (multi story building), to grow non edible vegetation that produces 5 times more ethanol than corn. Build the vertical stack farming units near to refinerys. . It will also eliminate costs for massive machinery and oil rigs. IE: Cost to build this new kind of infrastructure comes from the savings of 500 Billion from reducing the 1 Trillion/year Military budget. Plus the savings from not having to use more fuel to transport oil to the refinery using worldwide shipping lanes and massive expensive tanker ships.

8. Shut down coal plants, retrain the workers, to manage/build the newer infrastructure of energy production that uses solar, wind, and renewable fuel production. Offer these displaced workers also, opportunities to repair existing infrastructure, or be retrained in any other job, receiving free training assistance from government as they do so.

I agree with 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

2&3: the top 20 percent are already paying over 80% of federal income taxes. A nation cannot long survive when the bottom 50% pay no federal income taxes.

8: Only after #7 is online.

[GrumpyDog]

I agree with 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

2&3: the top 20 percent are already paying over 80% of federal income taxes. A nation cannot long survive when the bottom 50% pay no federal income taxes.

8: Only after #7 is online.



Okay, so no tax increase on the upper 10%, keep it at 35% but would you agree on perhaps getting rid of any kind of tax deduction that encourages outsourcing?

And perhaps a tax incentive, to build manufacturing plants in America, if the company agrees to a set % of profit/gross ratio, in return for which, the wage of workers is based upon performance, quality of product, while their healthcare is covered by a National sales tax?

[Peter1469]

Okay, so no tax increase on the upper 10%, keep it at 35% but would you agree on perhaps getting rid of any kind of tax deduction that encourages outsourcing?

And perhaps a tax incentive, to build manufacturing plants in America, if the company agrees to a set % of profit/gross ratio, in return for which, the wage of workers is based upon performance, quality of product, while their healthcare is covered by a National sales tax?


Agreed on all points except the last.

Regarding health care I would like to get employers out, and the federal government out.

States should set up risk pools to take advantage of economies of scale. Healthy people get better rates, but even fat-asses can get affordable insurance. Once risk pools get too expensive then the states should consider subsidies.

[GrumpyDog]

Agreed on all points except the last.

Regarding health care I would like to get employers out, and the federal government out.

States should set up risk pools to take advantage of economies of scale. Healthy people get better rates, but even fat-asses can get affordable insurance. Once risk pools get too expensive then the states should consider subsidies.

Sounds okay for now.

There you have it folks. Raving leftwinger like me and the Virginian Centrist (probably Romney supporter guy), can reach a pragmatic solution.

And no money or bribery involved either.(which is why it was easy).

[Peter1469]

Sounds okay for now.

There you have it folks. Raving leftwinger like me and the Virginian Centrist (probably Romney supporter guy), can reach a pragmatic solution.

And no money or bribery involved either.(which is why it was easy).

I am not really a Romney supporter. He is too much of a lib for me.

[GrumpyDog]

I am not really a Romney supporter. He is too much of a lib for me.

He is maybe pretending to be Liberal now, or he may have been pretending to be Conservative earlier. Or vice versa. Its very confusing really to know for certain.

Both Romney and Obama, will probably one day, many years from now, be enjoying memories at Obamas 40 Million dollar Hawiian mansion, or be enjoying a stay on Romneys yacht the "Cracker Jack" on their way to the Caymen Islands resort hotels.

Meanwhile, on battleground American mainland, yet another Republican and Democrat candidate, probably vetted by special international interests, will once again play the game of fool the suckers and take their money.

[Peter1469]

He is maybe pretending to be Liberal now, or he may have been pretending to be Conservative earlier. Or vice versa. Its very confusing really to know for certain.

Both Romney and Obama, will probably one day, many years from now, be enjoying memories at Obamas 40 Million dollar Hawiian mansion, or be enjoying a stay on Romneys yacht the "Cracker Jack" on their way to the Caymen Islands resort hotels.

Meanwhile, on battleground American mainland, yet another Republican and Democrat candidate, probably vetted by special international interests, will once again play the game of fool the suckers and take their money.

Republicans and Democrats = two sides of the same coin.

[Trinnity]

The Obama admin will misrepresent anyone and anything to their advantage. We know this is true. Good for this man for speaking out.