if you only read one article on romneys tax plan this should be the one

[strollingbones]

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.

In many ways the report did just what the center was created to do: inject some solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Mr. Marron said.

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

 

[Darkwind]

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.

In many ways the report did just what the center was created to do: inject some solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Mr. Marron said.

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

I stop reading when the very first sentence is a lie.

 

[SniperFire]

Romney is a brilliant financier and has balanced large budgets his entire life. Ryan is considered to be the best budget wonk in Washington.

Obama struggles with 7th grade math.


This is all anyone needs to know.

 

[JimH52]

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.

In many ways the report did just what the center was created to do: inject some solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Mr. Marron said.

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

I stop reading when the very first sentence is a lie.

Of course you did! Tools and Hacks like you can't take the truth. Romney is one of the most devious and flip flopping candidates that I have ever seen. He will change his positions more than his underwear in the next ten days.

He WILL NOT repeal Obamacare,as he iniitally claimed. He will pick and chose the bext parts of the program. Oh and his Greatest Lieof all...and I quote:

“I don't have a five trillion dollar tax cut,” He told Obama at the first debate. then he said...."Who told you that?"

My Word! No wonder Obama was speechless. He have never seen anyone lie that much. I am sure Barack never expected a "devote" Morman to tell such a Huge Lie...

 

[Sarah G]

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.

In many ways the report did just what the center was created to do: inject some solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Mr. Marron said.

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

I stop reading when the very first sentence is a lie.

Or that you have a short attention span is more likely the reason.

 

[Two Thumbs]

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.

In many ways the report did just what the center was created to do: inject some solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Mr. Marron said.

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

Non-partisan, yet they have yet to mention anything about obamas plan.

telling

very telling

 

[Stephanie]

Hey, I'll try some one ELSES plan over the TAX anyone and anything they can find that this administration proposes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

WASHINGTON — A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.

That study found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he had made on individual tax reform: including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Mr. Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.

The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Mr. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Mr. Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.

At the Tax Policy Center itself, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria. “There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist. “That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.

In many ways the report did just what the center was created to do: inject some solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Mr. Marron said.

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

I stop reading when the very first sentence is a lie.

I understand, willful ignorance is the best defense for cognitive dissonance.

 

[naturegirl]

The plan we have isn't working, the #1 priority of JOBS hasn't panned out. I'm ready to try someone else's. If it doesn't work, we can do this all over again in four years.

 

[Stephanie]

The plan we have isn't working, the #1 priority of JOBS hasn't panned out. I'm ready to try someone else's. If it doesn't work, we can do this all over again in four years.

we are suppose to love Obama's plan and just enjoy that 8% unemployment..

 

[Wry Catcher]

The plan we have isn't working, the #1 priority of JOBS hasn't panned out. I'm ready to try someone else's. If it doesn't work, we can do this all over again in four years.

Obama's policy's are working. In January 2009, , in that one month, we lost over 800,000 jobs. Banks weren't loaning, businesses failed and we were experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But you know this, so why lie?

 

[SniperFire]

The plan we have isn't working, the #1 priority of JOBS hasn't panned out. I'm ready to try someone else's. If it doesn't work, we can do this all over again in four years.

Obama's policy's are working. In January 2009, , in that one month, we lost over 800,000 jobs. Banks weren't loaning, businesses failed and we were experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But you know this, so why lie?

This was because our wealth and job creators saw that we had just elected a Marxist as POTUS.

So they bailed.

They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing.

 

[zeke]

The plan we have isn't working, the #1 priority of JOBS hasn't panned out. I'm ready to try someone else's. If it doesn't work, we can do this all over again in four years.

Obama's policy's are working. In January 2009, , in that one month, we lost over 800,000 jobs. Banks weren't loaning, businesses failed and we were experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But you know this, so why lie?

This was because our wealth and job creators saw that we had just elected a Marxist as POTUS.

So they bailed.

They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing.

Your fuking stupidity knows no bounds. Amazing that you can keep a roof over your head.

Yea all those workers were laid off because sales at the companies they worked at was strong.

And those smart CEO's didn't want that business because we had a Marxist in the WH.

Is that your story. Stupid fuk.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama's policy's are working. In January 2009, , in that one month, we lost over 800,000 jobs. Banks weren't loaning, businesses failed and we were experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But you know this, so why lie?

This was because our wealth and job creators saw that we had just elected a Marxist as POTUS.

So they bailed.

They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing.

Your fuking stupidity knows no bounds. Amazing that you can keep a roof over your head.

Yea all those workers were laid off because sales at the companies they worked at was strong.

And those smart CEO's didn't want that business because we had a Marxist in the WH.

Is that your story. Stupid fuk.

go back to drinking

 

[Moonglow]

The plan we have isn't working, the #1 priority of JOBS hasn't panned out. I'm ready to try someone else's. If it doesn't work, we can do this all over again in four years.

Yes, never blame the lame congress

 

[SniperFire]

Obama's policy's are working. In January 2009, , in that one month, we lost over 800,000 jobs. Banks weren't loaning, businesses failed and we were experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But you know this, so why lie?

This was because our wealth and job creators saw that we had just elected a Marxist as POTUS.

So they bailed.

They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing.

Your fuking stupidity knows no bounds. Amazing that you can keep a roof over your head.

Yea all those workers were laid off because sales at the companies they worked at was strong.

And those smart CEO's didn't want that business because we had a Marxist in the WH.

Is that your story. Stupid fuk.

If our wealth and job creators were excited about the business and economic outlook of our election of a Marxist POTUS, would they have fled the marketplace in record numbers?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This was because our wealth and job creators saw that we had just elected a Marxist as POTUS.

So they bailed.

They don't call it 'smart money' for nothing.

Your fuking stupidity knows no bounds. Amazing that you can keep a roof over your head.

Yea all those workers were laid off because sales at the companies they worked at was strong.

And those smart CEO's didn't want that business because we had a Marxist in the WH.

Is that your story. Stupid fuk.

If our wealth and job creators were excited about the business and economic outlook of our election of a Marxist POTUS, would they have fled the marketplace in record numbers?

SniperFire maybe very well be stupid but I suspect s/he is simply a racist who hates Obama because of his African father. S/he isn't able to argue points so s/he must lie and use hackneyed pejoratives in a failed effort to be relevant.

 

[SniperFire]

Your fuking stupidity knows no bounds. Amazing that you can keep a roof over your head.

Yea all those workers were laid off because sales at the companies they worked at was strong.

And those smart CEO's didn't want that business because we had a Marxist in the WH.

Is that your story. Stupid fuk.

If our wealth and job creators were excited about the business and economic outlook of our election of a Marxist POTUS, would they have fled the marketplace in record numbers?

SniperFire maybe very well be stupid but I suspect s/he is simply a racist who hates Obama because of his African father. S/he isn't able to argue points so s/he must lie and use hackneyed pejoratives in a failed effort to be relevant.

Wad Catcher can't stand the truth, so he screams:

LOL

 

[Stephanie]

Your fuking stupidity knows no bounds. Amazing that you can keep a roof over your head.

Yea all those workers were laid off because sales at the companies they worked at was strong.

And those smart CEO's didn't want that business because we had a Marxist in the WH.

Is that your story. Stupid fuk.

If our wealth and job creators were excited about the business and economic outlook of our election of a Marxist POTUS, would they have fled the marketplace in record numbers?

SniperFire maybe very well be stupid but I suspect s/he is simply a racist who hates Obama because of his African father. S/he isn't able to argue points so s/he must lie and use hackneyed pejoratives in a failed effort to be relevant.

who cares what you suspect..I'll be glad when we don't have to hear this stupid shit anymore

VOTE OBAMA out people

 

[Moonglow]

Then we will hear stupid shit about Mittens.