Obama Misrepresenting Romney's Tax Plan

[Freedomlover]

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


8:45 AM, Oct 8, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "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."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper 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.

 

[Katzndogz]

The truth has never stopped the democrats from lying. We know how well obama's policies have worked. He has to issue a phony jobs report and even that didn't give him a boost.

 

[occupied]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rosen's numbers are based on his own injection of what Bush the elder called 'voodoo'.

"In this paper, I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth."

Translation - he can't say the plan is revenue neutral unless he makes up some numbers that make it revenue neutral.

Harvey Rosen on the Romney Tax Proposal - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

 

[Katzndogz]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

If regime change would restore confidence among business, then yes there will be a boom time just because obama is gone.

 

[occupied]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

If regime change would restore confidence among business, then yes there will be a boom time just because obama is gone.

No it will not, America's boom times have always been fueled by consumer credit, how's he going to fix that? America will not go on another wild consumer spending spree for a very long time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

Faith based economic theory? Like Obama's plan to create 1 million manufacturing jobs? To reduce the debt by $4 trillion buy spending more money and hoping for economic returns orders of magnitude higher than an he has seen yet?

You are beyond pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rosen's numbers are based on his own injection of what Bush the elder called 'voodoo'.

"In this paper, I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth."

Translation - he can't say the plan is revenue neutral unless he makes up some numbers that make it revenue neutral.

Harvey Rosen on the Romney Tax Proposal - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

Let me get this straight, an economist assuming certain conditions exist in order to make a projection that favors the bad guys is evil, but another economist making the exact same assumptions in order to favor the good guys is good.

Glad to see you aren't biased.

 

[kwc57]

Rosen's numbers are based on his own injection of what Bush the elder called 'voodoo'.

"In this paper, I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth."

Translation - he can't say the plan is revenue neutral unless he makes up some numbers that make it revenue neutral.

Harvey Rosen on the Romney Tax Proposal - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

From Rosen himself.

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard

 

[NYcarbineer]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

If regime change would restore confidence among business, then yes there will be a boom time just because obama is gone.

We're a consumer driven economy. Consumer confidence hit a record low in February 2009, at 25.3.

It's now 70.3.

Thank you, President Obama.

 

[occupied]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

Faith based economic theory? Like Obama's plan to create 1 million manufacturing jobs? To reduce the debt by $4 trillion buy spending more money and hoping for economic returns orders of magnitude higher than an he has seen yet?

You are beyond pathetic.

I was never under any illusion that Obama was just going fix everything in short order and we would all be singing "happy days are here again" in the streets, now who's pathetic? Romney's tax plan counts on an incredible short term increase in all levels of income to work and my question to you is this, how is he going to accomplish this exactly? Just being there is not enough to overcome the structural flaws and wreckage in our economy, it just isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rosen's numbers are based on his own injection of what Bush the elder called 'voodoo'.

"In this paper, I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth."

Translation - he can't say the plan is revenue neutral unless he makes up some numbers that make it revenue neutral.

Harvey Rosen on the Romney Tax Proposal - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

Let me get this straight, an economist assuming certain conditions exist in order to make a projection that favors the bad guys is evil, but another economist making the exact same assumptions in order to favor the good guys is good.

Glad to see you aren't biased.

Sorry to see you can't read.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes we see evidence of consumer confidence everywhere.

That's why manufacturing is up.

US manufacturing down for third month - FT.com

Oh wait. It's not.

 

[VaYank5150]

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


8:45 AM, Oct 8, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "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."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper 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.

You know, if Romney/Ryan would simply explain HOW their plans works, with the mathematics involved, no one would have to try to explain it for them. Just sayin....

 

[kwc57]

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


8:45 AM, Oct 8, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "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."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper 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.

You know, if Romney/Ryan would simply explain HOW their plans works, with the mathematics involved, no one would have to try to explain it for them. Just sayin....

Odd request for someone who thinks "hope and change" is a plan worth electing someone over.

 

[kwc57]

Looks like someone is angling for an appointment, it's junk, looks like even Romney thinks the economy is just going to go back to boom times just because he is president. Spare us more faith based economic theory, trickle down and the invisible hand has already about ruined us.

Faith based economic theory? Like Obama's plan to create 1 million manufacturing jobs? To reduce the debt by $4 trillion buy spending more money and hoping for economic returns orders of magnitude higher than an he has seen yet?

You are beyond pathetic.

I was never under any illusion that Obama was just going fix everything in short order and we would all be singing "happy days are here again" in the streets, now who's pathetic? Romney's tax plan counts on an incredible short term increase in all levels of income to work and my question to you is this, how is he going to accomplish this exactly? Just being there is not enough to overcome the structural flaws and wreckage in our economy, it just isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Really? Obama did.

 

[occupied]

It's interesting to note, to those who can remember back a few months, that this 47% figure did not originate with Romney, it was a common argument on this board that 47% did not pay federal taxes and some way must be found to make these deadbeats pay up and take some of the horrible burden of our historically low taxes off the "job creators". The people who often brought this up were unashamed to say that the tax burden needs to be shifted sharply downward. So now we hear this same number from a presidential candidate who no doubt has also digested the same argument that the tax burden must be shifted downward, excuse me if I see his taxation philosophy in the light of the constant calls on this board to stick it to the working poor so the "over burdened" wealthy can trickle down some more nothing.

 

[kwc57]

It's interesting to note, to those who can remember back a few months, that this 47% figure did not originate with Romney, it was a common argument on this board that 47% did not pay federal taxes and some way must be found to make these deadbeats pay up and take some of the horrible burden of our historically low taxes off the "job creators". The people who often brought this up were unashamed to say that the tax burden needs to be shifted sharply downward. So now we hear this same number from a presidential candidate who no doubt has also digested the same argument that the tax burden must be shifted downward, excuse me if I see his taxation philosophy in the light of the constant calls on this board to stick it to the working poor so the "over burdened" wealthy can trickle down some more nothing.

You lie as badly as Obama. Give it up.

 

[occupied]

It's interesting to note, to those who can remember back a few months, that this 47% figure did not originate with Romney, it was a common argument on this board that 47% did not pay federal taxes and some way must be found to make these deadbeats pay up and take some of the horrible burden of our historically low taxes off the "job creators". The people who often brought this up were unashamed to say that the tax burden needs to be shifted sharply downward. So now we hear this same number from a presidential candidate who no doubt has also digested the same argument that the tax burden must be shifted downward, excuse me if I see his taxation philosophy in the light of the constant calls on this board to stick it to the working poor so the "over burdened" wealthy can trickle down some more nothing.

You lie as badly as Obama. Give it up.

Pretty convenient memory loss there chief, no wonder they can lie to you so effectively.

 

[VaYank5150]

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


8:45 AM, Oct 8, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "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."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper 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.

You know, if Romney/Ryan would simply explain HOW their plans works, with the mathematics involved, no one would have to try to explain it for them. Just sayin....

Odd request for someone who thinks "hope and change" is a plan worth electing someone over.

Sorry, but it sure beat the "Occupy Iraq forever/I can see Russia from my house" ticket...