Can the US afford that $5tr?

What's amusing to me is that anyone with half a brain knows that the 5 trillion figure is not in the slightest way representative of what tax cuts coupled with tightening of deductions and loopholes would end up costing us and that the estimates that ARE given don't include the stimulative effects of tax cuts...yet you Obama sycophants keep trotting that figure out like its been carved in stone and handed down from above as "gospel".

I asked Saigon earlier to explain how Reagan was able to cut taxes yet only have revenues dip by a minute amount...a question that he ducked. Why is that, Saigon?

Reagan "cut" taxes? Really? Actually, Reagan "raised" taxes in seven of his eight years in office - 11 times in total.

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt | Crooks and Liars
 
What's amusing to me is that anyone with half a brain knows that the 5 trillion figure is not in the slightest way representative of what tax cuts coupled with tightening of deductions and loopholes would end up costing us and that the estimates that ARE given don't include the stimulative effects of tax cuts...yet you Obama sycophants keep trotting that figure out like its been carved in stone and handed down from above as "gospel".

I asked Saigon earlier to explain how Reagan was able to cut taxes yet only have revenues dip by a minute amount...a question that he ducked. Why is that, Saigon?

Reagan "cut" taxes? Really? Actually, Reagan "raised" taxes in seven of his eight years in office - 11 times in total.

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt | Crooks and Liars
Then why are you all so embittered. Hell, with all that tax raising you woulda thunk he'd be a hero to the left.
 
Where will the $5 trillion to find Romney's tax plan come from?

Fairly obviously it isn't all going to come from closing the odd loophole....

Can the US really afford to borrow another $5 trillion?

The left can quit lying now. Cutter admitted it is not true. Of course, many knew that. The only ones who believed it were those who believes everything Obama says.

Cutter Concedes $5 Trillion Attack On Romney Is Not True

That's a lie. More twisted Breitbart bullshit. BTW, Erin Burnett ain't the brightest bulb in the box.
Just because they aren't paying you per post.... :lol:
 
The left can quit lying now. Cutter admitted it is not true. Of course, many knew that. The only ones who believed it were those who believes everything Obama says.

Cutter Concedes $5 Trillion Attack On Romney Is Not True

That's a lie. More twisted Breitbart bullshit. BTW, Erin Burnett ain't the brightest bulb in the box.
Just because they aren't paying you per post.... :lol:
.
Burnett: We can't prove either side, that's all I'm saying, but the one thing that I can say is not true is the $5 trillion tax cut.

Cutter: I disagree with you. You can prove it. So then they should just say that they're counting entirely on economic growth to pay for a tax cut. Which is an interesting theory because that is what George Bush and let's look at how that turned out, we had the slowest economic growth since World War II.

Burnett: They're not saying entirely, they're saying closing loopholes and economic growth, both. I understand you disagree with it.

Cutter: But that still leaves you at least a trillion dollars short. The math does not work with what they're saying. And they won't name those deductions, not a single deduction that they will close because they know that is bad for their politics. Now look, this is the center, this is the core of Mitt Romney's economic policy. Last night, he walked away from it, said he didn't have a $5 trillion tax cut. He does. That's what lowering the rates amounts to.
 
What's amusing to me is that anyone with half a brain knows that the 5 trillion figure is not in the slightest way representative of what tax cuts coupled with tightening of deductions and loopholes would end up costing us and that the estimates that ARE given don't include the stimulative effects of tax cuts...yet you Obama sycophants keep trotting that figure out like its been carved in stone and handed down from above as "gospel".

I asked Saigon earlier to explain how Reagan was able to cut taxes yet only have revenues dip by a minute amount...a question that he ducked. Why is that, Saigon?

Reagan "cut" taxes? Really? Actually, Reagan "raised" taxes in seven of his eight years in office - 11 times in total.

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt | Crooks and Liars

You progressives always shoot yourselves in the foot with your arguments because you can't get the message straight. Reagan did cut taxes substantially but he also broadened the tax base. The top rate went from somewhere around 70% down to 28% and the corporate rate went from 48% to 34%. Over a period of years some of those rates were in fact raised back by small amounts, which should come as no surprise to anyone since Reagan was working with a Democratically controlled Congress at the time and unlike Barry, Reagan made compromise work. Your cite of "Think Progress" propaganda does nothing to explain how Reagan was able to cut rates by the amount that he did and yet not incur massive losses on Federal revenues. The fact of the matter is Reaganomics, despite dire predictions from the far Left produced only a very small loss of revenue.
 
What's amusing to me is that anyone with half a brain knows that the 5 trillion figure is not in the slightest way representative of what tax cuts coupled with tightening of deductions and loopholes would end up costing us and that the estimates that ARE given don't include the stimulative effects of tax cuts...yet you Obama sycophants keep trotting that figure out like its been carved in stone and handed down from above as "gospel".

I asked Saigon earlier to explain how Reagan was able to cut taxes yet only have revenues dip by a minute amount...a question that he ducked. Why is that, Saigon?

Reagan "cut" taxes? Really? Actually, Reagan "raised" taxes in seven of his eight years in office - 11 times in total.

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt | Crooks and Liars
You are referencing thinkprogress. It's not worth reading their insipid liberal drivel.
 
He won't go into details, because he will elliminate many deductions that middle class families use. The home mortgage deduction will be on the chopping block. But u won't hear him say anything about that in a debate. That is how he will afford the 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.
 
He won't go into details, because he will elliminate many deductions that middle class families use. The home mortgage deduction will be on the chopping block. But u won't hear him say anything about that in a debate. That is how he will afford the 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.

Exactly.

I think itäs fairly clear to most of us that Romney is not going to close loopholes that his supporters use - so that means he must be intending to close loopholes that middle and close income people use.

Now some of those probably do warrant closing, but an honest man would stand up and say so, rather than refuse to admit where the $5 trillion will come from.

No wonder even the Washington Post describe the tax cuts as "ruinous".
 
He won't go into details, because he will elliminate many deductions that middle class families use. The home mortgage deduction will be on the chopping block. But u won't hear him say anything about that in a debate. That is how he will afford the 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the lobbyists for mortgage bankers and realtors, right? :rolleyes:
 
He won't go into details, because he will elliminate many deductions that middle class families use. The home mortgage deduction will be on the chopping block. But u won't hear him say anything about that in a debate. That is how he will afford the 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.

Exactly.

I think itäs fairly clear to most of us that Romney is not going to close loopholes that his supporters use - so that means he must be intending to close loopholes that middle and close [low] income people use.

Now some of those probably do warrant closing, but an honest man would stand up and say so, rather than refuse to admit where the $5 trillion will come from.

No wonder even the Washington Post describe the tax cuts as "ruinous".
And you have to remember Willard said he would "BROADEN THE BASE" and the only way to do that is to eliminate deductions the poor use since they have no "loopholes." That means cutting the per child tax deduction and eliminating the earned income tax credit. "BROADENING THE BASE" means making the bottom 47% pay more so the top 20% pay less.
 
Last edited:
He won't go into details, because he will elliminate many deductions that middle class families use. The home mortgage deduction will be on the chopping block. But u won't hear him say anything about that in a debate. That is how he will afford the 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.

Exactly.

I think itäs fairly clear to most of us that Romney is not going to close loopholes that his supporters use - so that means he must be intending to close loopholes that middle and close income people use.

Now some of those probably do warrant closing, but an honest man would stand up and say so, rather than refuse to admit where the $5 trillion will come from.

No wonder even the Washington Post describe the tax cuts as "ruinous".

"Fairly clear"? You just wrote three sentences and stated nothing.
 
He won't go into details, because he will elliminate many deductions that middle class families use. The home mortgage deduction will be on the chopping block. But u won't hear him say anything about that in a debate. That is how he will afford the 5 Trillion dollar tax cut.

The five trillion dollar cut that doesn't exist. Great!
Oh, the home mortgage interest deduction is off the table.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/u...-key-variables-blank.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I snipped this from the article. It is in a middle location of the story.
"Eliminate the home-mortgage interest deduction (annual cost: $99 billion and rising) and risk that housing prices will plummet just as that sector of the economy is starting to recover. End the deduction for charitable giving (annual cost: $53 billion) and attract the wrath of every hospital chief and museum director. Touch the protections for investment income (annual cost: more than $100 billion) and anger everyone from Wall Street executives to retirees.

Given that reality, the campaign has said it would protect some tax breaks — most notably the home-mortgage interest deduction and the investment protections."
 

Forum List

Back
Top