If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   "Thank you Mr. Obama for bringing attention to my study showing the Romney tax plan increasing taxes on the middle class. Now, if only you could actually point out how it doesn't say that"   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 209
    More: Amusing, obama, middle class, Martin Feldstein, Obama campaign  
•       •       •

2867 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2012 at 12:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-08 10:30:46 AM  
Which Romney tax plan are you referring to?

Newt Gingrich: Romney Flip-Flopped On Tax Cuts
 
2012-10-08 10:37:41 AM  
It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.
 
2012-10-08 10:41:48 AM  
There's only a month until the election. Romney and Ryan can't explain which deductions they need to eliminate in such a short time!
 
2012-10-08 10:53:53 AM  
Can we turn this into a global warming thread, since you know, there are hella more scientists being misrepresented about that by a bigger group.
 
2012-10-08 11:11:00 AM  
sssssssssssssss we're not allowed to point out the truth, that racist.
 
2012-10-08 11:31:19 AM  

impaler: Which Romney tax plan are you referring to?

Newt Gingrich: Romney Flip-Flopped On Tax Cuts


There has to be a better person than Gingrich who can criticize Romney on this. What good is it when you have clowns like Gingrich, Trump or Palin express opinions that you happen to agree with?
 
2012-10-08 12:04:50 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: sssssssssssssss we're not allowed to point out the truth, that racist.


Which truth? The one that he said before the debates, or the one he said during the debates?

/we are in full superposition mode, folks
 
2012-10-08 12:17:07 PM  
Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)
 
2012-10-08 12:17:58 PM  
Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"
 
2012-10-08 12:18:56 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Which truth? The one that he said before the debates, or the one he said during the debates?


the truth that's most convenient at any given time. Duh.
 
2012-10-08 12:19:09 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


No, we have you saying what liberals supposedly said, except we didn't.

So... STFU?
 
2012-10-08 12:19:26 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)


Out of curiousity, do you know what rope-a-dope means?
 
2012-10-08 12:19:28 PM  
Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies - a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost - then Romney's numbers might work out. Link
 
2012-10-08 12:19:49 PM  
FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

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.


One of these things is not like the other...
 
2012-10-08 12:19:50 PM  
The only studies that say Romney's plan can be revenue neutral and not hit the middle class assume the plan will create growth

Tax cuts do not create growth

Romney's plan is tax cuts

So . . .
 
2012-10-08 12:20:11 PM  
When will the Weakly Standard finally hire a proofreader? Pretty egregious spelling error,if you ask me.
 
2012-10-08 12:20:19 PM  

kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.


Oh look! You still don't understand

Placing a limit on how much you can deduct is not the same as eliminating specific deductions

It is also a much fairer way to deal with deductions.
 
2012-10-08 12:21:24 PM  
Take top 10% of taxpayers.
Lower tax rate and remove deductions.
Net Gain for top 10% tax payers.
Claim that tax plan is fiscally neutral.

That means that the lower/middle income tax payers make up for the top 10% tax breaks........
 
2012-10-08 12:22:20 PM  

randomjsa: Again we have the liberals saying "When we voted for Obama we expected no details on anything and neither should you. He didn't even live up to his promise to have the health care debate in public. Now we expect Romney/Ryan to release every single solitary detail of everything they want to do... Or they're hiding something!"


Oh and don't forget now that 0bama has been in office for almost 4 years he still doesn't need to release details

Just tell us another story about your grandma or a person you met on the campaign
 
2012-10-08 12:22:36 PM  
What I don't get is how a revenue-neutral reshuffling of the tax code is supposed to do the economy any good.
 
2012-10-08 12:24:04 PM  
I remember the glory of our last GOP President.

We got 9-11! Woo hoo!
Then we got to invade Iraq - AWESOME!
Then we got the great recession! Even better.

Under the last GOP president, unemployment went up 100%! That's freakin fantastic.

I am voting for Romney like five times.
 
2012-10-08 12:24:08 PM  
Whatever your take on this is, Mitt Agrees with you!
 
2012-10-08 12:24:34 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: What I don't get is how a revenue-neutral reshuffling of the tax code is supposed to do the economy any good.


The rich get much more money and that makes supply side Jesus happy.
 
2012-10-08 12:25:42 PM  
I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.
 
2012-10-08 12:26:50 PM  
Are we going to the pedantic "It doesn't actually say he'll raise taxes on the middle class" argument?

These guys remind me of the Dead Alewives D&D exchange

"Picard: How can they surround us I had Mordenkainens Magical Watch Dog cast?

Graham: No you didn't.

Nightblade: I'm getting drunk, are there any girls there!

Picard: I totally did. You asked me if I wanted any equipment before this adventure and I said no, but I need material components for all my spells, so I cast Mordenkainens Faithful Watch Dog.

Graham: But you never actually cast it.

Nightblade: Roll the dice to see if I'm getting drunk!

Graham: Ugh. Yeah you are.

Nightblade: Are there any girls there?

Graham: Yeah!

Picard: I did though; I completely said when you asked me.

Graham: No you didn't. You didn't actually say that you were casting the spell so now there's ogres. Ok."
 
2012-10-08 12:27:09 PM  

The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.


Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:39 PM  
His study says that a tax plan along the lines of Romney's is theoretically possible, not that Romney's plan actually adheres to it's stated goals.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:41 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Another 0bama lie
That is all he did in the debate. Well, besides look down at the podium a lot.

Romney has been playing the long game and had 0bama rope a doped into thinking he was debating the characterture that 0bama created (no regulation, killing a woman because she lost her insurance, giving 5t in tax breaks to the rich, eating a dog, etc)


So if Romney is elected, we'll have a President who has severe brain damage and mostly just stands around smiling as people lead him from event to event? It really will be like the Reagan years all over again.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:51 PM  

pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.


No Republican has ever misrepresented anything, much less the work of economists.
 
2012-10-08 12:28:37 PM  
Huh, as it turns out, The Numbers do lie.
 
2012-10-08 12:29:49 PM  

pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.


did they misquote the author of the study?
 
2012-10-08 12:30:02 PM  
Obama wasn't citing Rosen's estimate, he's citing the research by the Brookings Institution. Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts). Also note that this doesn't match Romney's claim that he will cut taxes on the middle class while either raising or keeping constant the taxes of the rich.

How anyone can honestly think cutting marginal tax rates while keeping effective tax rates the same is expansionary monetary policy is beyond me, but then again these people think a tax cut to stimulate the economy is not an example of Keynesianism.
 
2012-10-08 12:30:16 PM  
Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.
 
2012-10-08 12:30:33 PM  

Bhruic: FTA: "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

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.

One of these things is not like the other...


Exactly. The first group is a bunch of moochers that needs to get more skin in the game, and the latter are the job creators who should, honestly, probably get a tax cut. Go Romney!
 
2012-10-08 12:31:19 PM  

The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.


/implying that the Romney campaign wouldn't or haven't misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage
 
2012-10-08 12:31:23 PM  

skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?


Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.
 
2012-10-08 12:32:25 PM  

pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?

Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.


I don't think logic works that way
 
2012-10-08 12:32:59 PM  

Grungehamster: Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts).


Look, when reality doesn't match right-wing dogma, it is obvious reality that's wrong and we shouldn't encourage it.
 
2012-10-08 12:33:04 PM  

skullkrusher: pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?

Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.

I don't think logic works that way


Well, its ok for you to be wrong.
 
2012-10-08 12:34:29 PM  

propasaurus: Huh, as it turns out, The Numbers do lie.


Judging from the responses so far, look like my prediction was pretty accurate. It's already brought out the ad hononims, attacks on the messenger and 'B..b..but republicans'.
 
2012-10-08 12:34:32 PM  

pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: skullkrusher: pacified: The Numbers: I predict a thread full of Obama supporters desperately trying to turn the subject to anything other than the topic of the article: that the Obama campaign misrepresented the work of an economist to turn it to their advantage.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but the Weakly Standard is filled with lies and bullshait.

did they misquote the author of the study?

Any publication that still has Bill Kristol write is automatically bullshiat.

I don't think logic works that way

Well, its ok for you to be wrong.


sure it is but logic doesn't work that way either.
 
2012-10-08 12:35:02 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Look, we'll tell you how it works. Once you elect us.


Hey, no fair using liberal talking points against liberals! You'll make them all mad and butthurt and stuff.
 
2012-10-08 12:36:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Harvey Rosen, a public finance expert at Princeton, argued that the Romney tax plan will increase economic growth dramatically, which in turn would raise revenue and negate the need for tax increases on the middle-class. He finds that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies - a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost - then Romney's numbers might work out. Link


Supply Side will work this time! I know it will! This time....
 
2012-10-08 12:37:35 PM  

Grungehamster: Obama wasn't citing Rosen's estimate, he's citing the research by the Brookings Institution. Rosen's math only works if you assume that the tax cuts speed up the economy by an additional 2.29% every year (which doesn't reflect the real stimulative effect of historic tax cuts). Also note that this doesn't match Romney's claim that he will cut taxes on the middle class while either raising or keeping constant the taxes of the rich.

How anyone can honestly think cutting marginal tax rates while keeping effective tax rates the same is expansionary monetary policy is beyond me, but then again these people think a tax cut to stimulate the economy is not an example of Keynesianism.


Expansionary fiscal policy; excuse me.
 
2012-10-08 12:37:44 PM  
The "reasonable assumptions" of the study, though, include removing deductions from the middle class. They also fail to consider the estate tax cuts that Romney has promised. And in the end, some of their numbers come from projected growth that is not realistic.

So... ignore the actual things Romney has said and project some awesome growth, and you see, move along, nothing to see here.
 
2012-10-08 12:37:56 PM  
Which Mitt Romney are we talking about? Governor of Massachusetts center-left Mitt Romney? Post primary pseudo-teatard Mitt Romney? Or last Wednesday Tim Yenmort?
 
2012-10-08 12:37:59 PM  
Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous
 
2012-10-08 12:38:17 PM  

kmmontandon: It has to eliminate deductions to achieve its supposedly revenue-neutral goals.

The Vulture/Voucher campaign refuses to explain which deductions, because most of them affect primarily the home owning and child raising middle-class.


Why should taxpayers subsidize your home ownership or breeding?
 
2012-10-08 12:39:41 PM  

MugzyBrown: Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


Because who farking needs facts and specifics before pulling the lever? The important thing is that he's not B(a)lack Obama.
 
2012-10-08 12:40:03 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why would Romney/Ryan release a list of deductions to be removed? Because they feel like giving Obama ammo to use against them? Every deduction will have a special interest group behind it.

Plus, the removal of deductions will be a negotiation with Ds and Rs in congress.

Asking for specifics at this point is either being idiotic or disingenuous


Not when your plan specifically requires the deductions in order to meet your stated goal of "revenue neutrality". If the deductions are yet to be negotiated, you can't therefore claim they will offset your tax cuts. You simply don't know
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report