Obama Misrepresenting Romney's Tax Plan

[Soggy in NOLA]

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...

McCain never said he'd occupy Iraq forever and it was Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin who actually said "I can see Russia from my house."

You should try reality every now and again.

 

[VaYank5150]

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...

McCain never said he'd occupy Iraq forever and it was Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin who actually said "I can see Russia from my house."

You should try reality every now and again.

I apologize for the fact that you are too stupid to understand paraphrasing....

During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years“:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

The basis for the line was Governor Palin's 11 September 2008 appearance on ABC News, her first major interview after being tapped as the vice-presidential nominee. During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp#ccWFWAupmvcVqpZr.99

 

[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.

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.

Liar

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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....

Ryan explained his plan, in detail. you slept through it, which is why you prefer Obama's, no details at all.

 

[naturegirl]

It's OK, Romney handed him his ass during the last debate, he'll have the opportunity to call him out on his lies again.

Obama is all big and bad until he has to meet Romney face to face. I'm surprised he didn't bow to him.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama has been so successful (in his own mind) of claiming that Romney said something he never really said, that obama did it to Professor Rosen too!

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.

Rosen can't tell! He can't! It was an outright LIE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It was quite a while ago that the 47% number came out, and yes, rightwingers here broadly supported raising taxes on those people,

although they weren't too keen on the idea that their own taxes would probably have to go up to accomplish that.

Conservatives are always trying to push the distribution of the tax burden downward.

 

[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.

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

The argument is that 47% pay no INCOME TAX and it is accurate. The other federal taxes, everyone who works pays into them at an equal percentage rate and everyone receives benefits from them down the road. The 47% not paying income taxes are riding on the 53%'s dime. But you knew that didn't you pee wee. Tell me, does it hurt when Obama butt rapes you with nothing more than pretty words for comfort.

 

[NYcarbineer]

obama has been so successful (in his own mind) of claiming that Romney said something he never really said, that obama did it to Professor Rosen too!

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.

Rosen can't tell! He can't! It was an outright LIE.

Have you read the Rosen report?

 

[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.

It was quite a while ago that the 47% number came out, and yes, rightwingers here broadly supported raising taxes on those people,

although they weren't too keen on the idea that their own taxes would probably have to go up to accomplish that.

Conservatives are always trying to push the distribution of the tax burden downward.

Incorrect. We ask that they give their "fair share" as Obama requests. Zero is not a fair share.

 

[kwc57]

obama has been so successful (in his own mind) of claiming that Romney said something he never really said, that obama did it to Professor Rosen too!

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.

Rosen can't tell! He can't! It was an outright LIE.

Have you read the Rosen report?

Have you read Rosen saying that Obama is misrepresenting his work. Who you going to believe?

 

[occupied]

You lie as badly as Obama. Give it up.

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

The argument is that 47% pay no INCOME TAX and it is accurate. The other federal taxes, everyone who works pays into them at an equal percentage rate and everyone receives benefits from them down the road. The 47% not paying income taxes are riding on the 53%'s dime. But you knew that didn't you pee wee. Tell me, does it hurt when Obama butt rapes you with nothing more than pretty words for comfort.

Was that supposed to be a defense against the clear indication that Romney would like to hike taxes on the poorest Americans to pay for further tax cuts on the wealthy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

obama has been so successful (in his own mind) of claiming that Romney said something he never really said, that obama did it to Professor Rosen too!

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.

Rosen can't tell! He can't! It was an outright LIE.

Have you read the Rosen report?

Have you read Rosen saying that Obama is misrepresenting his work. Who you going to believe?

Rosen makes absurd assumptions in his work. At one point he assumes that Romney is going to get rid of the charity deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and state and local tax deductions.

On what planet will that ever happen?

 

[kwc57]

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

The argument is that 47% pay no INCOME TAX and it is accurate. The other federal taxes, everyone who works pays into them at an equal percentage rate and everyone receives benefits from them down the road. The 47% not paying income taxes are riding on the 53%'s dime. But you knew that didn't you pee wee. Tell me, does it hurt when Obama butt rapes you with nothing more than pretty words for comfort.

Was that supposed to be a defense against the clear indication that Romney would like to hike taxes on the poorest Americans to pay for further tax cuts on the wealthy?

Look, I'll agree that the poorest shouldn't have to pay any income tax. Likewise, they won't get any government assistance. Agree?

 

[kwc57]

Have you read the Rosen report?

Have you read Rosen saying that Obama is misrepresenting his work. Who you going to believe?

Rosen makes absurd assumptions in his work. At one point he assumes that Romney is going to get rid of the charity deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and state and local tax deductions.

On what planet will that ever happen?

Soooooo, Obama's interpretation of Rosen's work trumps Rosen's understanding of his own work. Man, it's good to be king!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The argument is that 47% pay no INCOME TAX and it is accurate. The other federal taxes, everyone who works pays into them at an equal percentage rate and everyone receives benefits from them down the road. The 47% not paying income taxes are riding on the 53%'s dime. But you knew that didn't you pee wee. Tell me, does it hurt when Obama butt rapes you with nothing more than pretty words for comfort.

Was that supposed to be a defense against the clear indication that Romney would like to hike taxes on the poorest Americans to pay for further tax cuts on the wealthy?

Romney and the Republicans have cornered themselves in very difficult box.

They want very badly to cut taxes for the Rich, but they know it's a political impossibility to ONLY cut taxes for the Rich,

and they also know that it's politically toxic to propose tax cuts for everyone that will further bust the budget.

As a result, they've stumbled on this bizarre fairy tale that they're now trying to sell:

1. They will cut tax rates for the Rich, but the Rich will pay the same because some loopholes will be eliminated.

2. They will cut tax rates for the not - Rich, but those will be real cuts because their loopholes won't be eliminated.

3. When you add it all up, it will be revenue neutral because something magical will happen.

The Romney tax plan is a two part plan. Part one is hocus. Part two is pocus.

The reality is that the Republicans want badly to cut the top rates dramatically, because they know that raising marginal rates is very very difficult politically,

but putting loopholes in, or back in, is relatively easy. That's the real hocus pocus going on here.

Romney wants to cut taxes for the Rich, period. What he says to get elected is meaningless. He would say he plans to round up the Rich and shoot them if he saw a poll that gave it ample support.

 

[occupied]

The argument is that 47% pay no INCOME TAX and it is accurate. The other federal taxes, everyone who works pays into them at an equal percentage rate and everyone receives benefits from them down the road. The 47% not paying income taxes are riding on the 53%'s dime. But you knew that didn't you pee wee. Tell me, does it hurt when Obama butt rapes you with nothing more than pretty words for comfort.

Was that supposed to be a defense against the clear indication that Romney would like to hike taxes on the poorest Americans to pay for further tax cuts on the wealthy?

Look, I'll agree that the poorest shouldn't have to pay any income tax. Likewise, they won't get any government assistance. Agree?

It's almost like you have no idea who the 47% moochers actually are at this late date.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have you read Rosen saying that Obama is misrepresenting his work. Who you going to believe?

Rosen makes absurd assumptions in his work. At one point he assumes that Romney is going to get rid of the charity deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and state and local tax deductions.

On what planet will that ever happen?

Soooooo, Obama's interpretation of Rosen's work trumps Rosen's understanding of his own work. Man, it's good to be king!

Rosen's analysis actually proves that Romney's plan will never be revenue neutral because to make it revenue neutral Rosen has to make assumptions that measures will be taken that are politically impossible to be taken.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination doesn't know shit about economics, he is just told to claim Romney is a liar and then he lies himself with bogus stats about Romney's plan.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The argument is that 47% pay no INCOME TAX and it is accurate. The other federal taxes, everyone who works pays into them at an equal percentage rate and everyone receives benefits from them down the road. The 47% not paying income taxes are riding on the 53%'s dime. But you knew that didn't you pee wee. Tell me, does it hurt when Obama butt rapes you with nothing more than pretty words for comfort.

Was that supposed to be a defense against the clear indication that Romney would like to hike taxes on the poorest Americans to pay for further tax cuts on the wealthy?

No wonder you believe Obama's bullshit, you are full of it yourself.