Can the US afford that $5tr?

Here it is again from the Washingon Post, which decribes the plan as "ruinous".

The danger is that Mr. Romney and Congress would enact the popular part of his plan, the tax cut, and then rely on the kind of wishful thinking he hinted at last night (“we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth”). We’ve seen, under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, where such wishful thinking gets you. This time, as the population ages and demands on government grow, the ending could be a lot scarier.

And here’s the really scary part: Mr. Romney’s plan is irresponsible, even if he could pay for it. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which he chastised Mr. Obama for not endorsing, concluded that the country cannot solve its fiscal problem without raising revenue and cutting spending. Given the political challenge of raising taxes, it also concluded that the only way to raise revenue would be with tax reform: doing some of the base-broadening that Mr. Romney favors and using some of the proceeds to reduce the debt. By devoting the proceeds of whatever loophole-closing he could manage instead to additional tax cuts, Mr. Romney would just feed the nation’s addiction to debt.

Romney’s ruinous tax plan - The Washington Post

Oddball -

Plese do not spam the thread.

You're telling a mod not too spam? :eusa_whistle:
 
Here it is again from the Washingon Post, which decribes the plan as "ruinous".

The danger is that Mr. Romney and Congress would enact the popular part of his plan, the tax cut, and then rely on the kind of wishful thinking he hinted at last night (“we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth”). We’ve seen, under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, where such wishful thinking gets you. This time, as the population ages and demands on government grow, the ending could be a lot scarier.

And here’s the really scary part: Mr. Romney’s plan is irresponsible, even if he could pay for it. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which he chastised Mr. Obama for not endorsing, concluded that the country cannot solve its fiscal problem without raising revenue and cutting spending. Given the political challenge of raising taxes, it also concluded that the only way to raise revenue would be with tax reform: doing some of the base-broadening that Mr. Romney favors and using some of the proceeds to reduce the debt. By devoting the proceeds of whatever loophole-closing he could manage instead to additional tax cuts, Mr. Romney would just feed the nation’s addiction to debt.

Romney’s ruinous tax plan - The Washington Post

Oddball -

Plese do not spam the thread.

You're telling a mod not too spam? :eusa_whistle:

:lol:I can hears those balls a clackin! :eusa_silenced:
 
CNN's lovely fact check on this. They say if you go by Romneys words than Obama's claim is false. Wow what a fact check.
 
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?

If Obammy is reelected it will be at least over $6 Trillion in new borrowing
 
As for how you make up the loss of revenues from tax cuts? I believe if you look closely at the Reagan tax cuts you'll see that although Reagan cut taxes substantially that tax revenues were down only a negligible amount because his policies spurred so much economic growth. You progressives never want to talk about economic growth though...do you? Of course, I can understand WHY it's a sore subject under this President.

So economic growth will produce $5 trillion in extra tax revenues?

Really?


btw, I am not a "progressive".

Natural gas along with the C1-C5 by-products would easily move us into an energy powerhouse. The tax revenues would pay for this.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel
Here it is again from the Washingon Post, which decribes the plan as "ruinous".

The danger is that Mr. Romney and Congress would enact the popular part of his plan, the tax cut, and then rely on the kind of wishful thinking he hinted at last night (“we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth”). We’ve seen, under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, where such wishful thinking gets you. This time, as the population ages and demands on government grow, the ending could be a lot scarier.

And here’s the really scary part: Mr. Romney’s plan is irresponsible, even if he could pay for it. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which he chastised Mr. Obama for not endorsing, concluded that the country cannot solve its fiscal problem without raising revenue and cutting spending. Given the political challenge of raising taxes, it also concluded that the only way to raise revenue would be with tax reform: doing some of the base-broadening that Mr. Romney favors and using some of the proceeds to reduce the debt. By devoting the proceeds of whatever loophole-closing he could manage instead to additional tax cuts, Mr. Romney would just feed the nation’s addiction to debt.

Romney’s ruinous tax plan - The Washington Post

Oddball -

Plese do not spam the thread.

The WaPost Supported Obama and his failed stimulus and has Paul Krugman write "economics" and you're going to take what they say as accurate?

LOL
 
And why is the "Romney Plan" expected to cost 5 trillion? Because it sounded like a good number when progressives made it up.

Actually no - this figure was put forward by more than one research company and quoted widely in the media here.

Of course you can say the international media are pasrt of some evil conspiracy, but I think it is more likely that the $5 trillion figure is fairly accurate.

It's a fucking lie.

It's like Obama talking about security at the Libyan Embassy
 
It's 1980 all over again!

cartersenergyprogram.jpg


Good evening. On Tuesday, we Americans will have the opportunity to exercise our role as citizens in a free democracy. Yet, only a third of the eligible voters will actually cast ballots. The other two-thirds are, in a sense, very lucky. Because they do not know what's going on.

Last week, I delivered a message on inflation. Since then, the dollar has dropped in value, the stock market has sustained record losses, and the whole Dow price index increased 0.9%. In other words, our economic system is screwed, blued and tattooed! We just have to face the fact that there is simply no way to fight inflation in a capitally-intensive, highly-technological, conflict-riddled, anything-for-a-thrill world of today. That's why, tonight, I want you to try to look for in inflation, an entirely new word: Inflation is our friend.

For example, consider this: in the year 2000, if current trends continue, the average blue-collar annual wage in this country will be $568,000. Think what this inflated world of the future will mean - most Americans will be millionaires. Everyone will feel like a bigshot. Wouldn't you like to own a $4,000 suit, and smoke a $75 cigar, drive a $600,000 car? I know I would! But what about people on fixed incomes? They have always been the true victims of inflation. That's why I will present to Congress the "Inflation Maintenance Program", whereby the U.S. Treasury will make up any inflation-caused losses to direct tax rebates to the public in cash. Then you may say, "Won't that cost a lot of money? Won't that increase the deficit?" Sure it will! But so what? We'll just print more money! We have the papers, we have the mints.. I can just call up the Bureau of Engraving and say, "Hi! This is Jimmy. Roll out some of them twenties! Print up a couple thousand sheets of those Century Notes!" Sure, all these dollars will cause even more inflation, but who cares? Everyone will be a millionaire!

In my speech last week, I said that America would have to undergo an austerity program, but since this revolutionary new approach welcomes inflation, our economy will be free to grow, and we can spend, spend, spend! I believe the watchwords for the 80's should be "Let's Party!"
 
It's 1980 all over again!

cartersenergyprogram.jpg


Good evening. On Tuesday, we Americans will have the opportunity to exercise our role as citizens in a free democracy. Yet, only a third of the eligible voters will actually cast ballots. The other two-thirds are, in a sense, very lucky. Because they do not know what's going on.

Last week, I delivered a message on inflation. Since then, the dollar has dropped in value, the stock market has sustained record losses, and the whole Dow price index increased 0.9%. In other words, our economic system is screwed, blued and tattooed! We just have to face the fact that there is simply no way to fight inflation in a capitally-intensive, highly-technological, conflict-riddled, anything-for-a-thrill world of today. That's why, tonight, I want you to try to look for in inflation, an entirely new word: Inflation is our friend.

For example, consider this: in the year 2000, if current trends continue, the average blue-collar annual wage in this country will be $568,000. Think what this inflated world of the future will mean - most Americans will be millionaires. Everyone will feel like a bigshot. Wouldn't you like to own a $4,000 suit, and smoke a $75 cigar, drive a $600,000 car? I know I would! But what about people on fixed incomes? They have always been the true victims of inflation. That's why I will present to Congress the "Inflation Maintenance Program", whereby the U.S. Treasury will make up any inflation-caused losses to direct tax rebates to the public in cash. Then you may say, "Won't that cost a lot of money? Won't that increase the deficit?" Sure it will! But so what? We'll just print more money! We have the papers, we have the mints.. I can just call up the Bureau of Engraving and say, "Hi! This is Jimmy. Roll out some of them twenties! Print up a couple thousand sheets of those Century Notes!" Sure, all these dollars will cause even more inflation, but who cares? Everyone will be a millionaire!

In my speech last week, I said that America would have to undergo an austerity program, but since this revolutionary new approach welcomes inflation, our economy will be free to grow, and we can spend, spend, spend! I believe the watchwords for the 80's should be "Let's Party!"

We seemed to have repeated history a lot quicker this time. And the music sucks now.
 
Last edited:
If a tax cut is revenue neutral, within the tax system,

then it's not a tax cut at all.

If you owe 10,000 in federal income tax this year under the current system, and then they cut your tax rates but eliminate some of your credits/exemptions/deductions so that you still end up owing 10,000 in federal income tax,

you didn't get a tax cut.

Why is Romney calling ANY of his tax plan a tax cut if its all revenue neutral?
 
Democrats are anti-growth. That's what it comes down to.

And so of course adding $5 trillion on to your national debt will help deliver growth.

Genius.

btw, You forgot to go back to KosherGirl's thread and admit that Romney's claim on the 47% - which you swore was true - has now been admitted to be false by the man himself.
 
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?

If Obammy is reelected it will be at least over $6 Trillion in new borrowing

Wow...so that means Romney's plan actually saves $1 trillion, does it, Frank?

What we know for a fact is that - based on the few facts Romney has let slip so far - Romney's plan will cost the US a massive amount of money.

That is what you might want to address.


You have to laugh, don't you?
 
Last edited:
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?

If Obammy is reelected it will be at least over $6 Trillion in new borrowing

Wow...so that means Romney's plan actually saves $1 trillion, does it, Frank?

You have to laugh, don't you?

I'm usually laughing at the Progressives at USMB.
 
Frank -

Perhaps if you spent more time addressing topics and less time laughing you wouldn't so often come across as the kind of person who thinks 'auto da fe' is a late model Renault.
 
We find that fully 60 percent of the static revenue loss from Romney’s plan is recovered when the dynamic effects of economic growth are taken into account. We find that while the cuts in the individual income tax rates do not “pay for themselves,” they do grow the economy 1.8 percent over the long run. The biggest boost to the economy comes from the 10 point cut in the corporate rate, which grows GDP by 2.3 percent, the capital stock by 6.3 percent, and the wage rate by 1.9 percent. The corporate rate cut is so economically beneficial that it does pay for itself, when all federal revenue effects are considered. So does the elimination of taxes on capital gains and dividends for middle-income earners and the estate tax.

These benefits are widely shared. Every income group experiences at least a 7 percent increase in after-tax income. ...

Most tax reductions do not completely “pay for themselves” with higher revenue, but they do add to economic growth and incomes, creating a significant net benefit to the public. For example, the across-the-board income tax rate reductions and elimination of the AMT recover only about 32 percent and 19 percent of their static revenue losses, but add $2.35 and $1.09 respectively to people’s pre-tax incomes for each dollar of revenue loss to the government (raising after-tax incomes by the economic gains plus the tax cut).

Nonetheless, some tax reductions are unusually effective in raising incomes and recovering revenues. Capital formation is highly sensitive to after-tax earnings. Some tax changes that aim directly at capital formation can trigger enough additional plant building, equipment purchasing, and hiring to come close to, or even more than offset, the initial revenue reduction. These include reductions in the estate tax and steps that offset some of the double taxation of corporate income, including lower corporate tax rates and lower taxes on capital gains (which hit retained after-tax corporate earnings) and dividends (which are paid out of after-tax corporate earnings). Our results indicate that these tax cuts do pay for themselves, meaning they benefit the federal government and the rest of the economy, including federal income taxpayers, low-income people who owe no federal taxes, and state and local governments. ...

Simulating the Economic Effects of Romney's Tax Plan | Tax Foundation

So according to this study, loopholes that need to be close would only need to be 40% of the total cost of the tax cuts.
 
What we know for a fact is that - based on the few facts Romney has let slip so far - Romney's plan will cost the US a massive amount of money.

That is what you might want to address.


You have to laugh, don't you?

We don't know anything of the sort. That's simply a bald faced lie. You're regurgitating Obama campaign propaganda. That's all you are: a shill for the Obama campaign.
 
OldStyle -

I'm not a liberal, and I have to say - I find this constant labeling and pigeon-holing immensely childish. It's anti-debate. Why not just take what I post at face value and stop trying to pretend I am something that I am not?

To get to your points, I don't think anyone imagines closing loopholes is going to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of millions possibly, but not hundreds. Especially as it is a given that those loopholes will not be ones which benefit the wealthy.

Any way you cut it, Romey's ideas for generating tax revenue will leave the government out of pocket by literally billions of dollars per year.

Of course you're not a "liberal", Saigon! You just come here and make posts that consistently support liberal positions. (eye-roll) What's amusing is that no liberal has admitted to being a liberal for years now. You all refer to yourselves as either "progressives" or if you're REALLY on the "down low", you declare yourselves to be "independents". Funny how you guys need to keep changing your identity whereas conservatives remain conservatives.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top