Oh the irony....:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Please stop showing facts. They contradict this alternative world Obama they have created.

Maybe you should do the same.. This is from that article.

Many are renewals of tax breaks that already existed. Others are expansions of previous breaks. And every time a measure gets renewed, the Obama administration is counting it as yet another tax cut

:thumbsup

.

You didn't read the article that was posted either...what were the odds of that.

Also, might consider reading your post prior to pressing the submit button.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/f...teps-1.4072614

"OBAMA: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut -- on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that's another trillion dollars -- and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign."

THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.

Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.

However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.

The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay for the lower rates."



.:2 cents:

The $5 trillion figure comes from the fact that Romney has proposed to cut tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that would reduce tax revenue by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5 trillion over 10 years.

Romney says he will make completely unspecified cuts to programs, close unnamed loopholes and end unidentified tax breaks to make it revenue neutral. Obama rightly pointed out that if you ended every loophole for people earning 250K or more, you can't get close to enough revenue to balance the equation. Therefore, Romney's claim that he will do this without burdening the middle class or raising the deficit is a patently false lie.

In simple math that would be: 5 trillion minus X where X can not include an increase in debt or any additional burden on the middle class.
We can not solve for X because Romney inexplicably plans to keep X a secret until after the election, but there is no X other than divine intervention that would fit.

Obama rightly pointed out it is in fact 5 trillion less revenue, and Romney can counter any time he wants by clearly identifying X for us. Until he does, he owns the 5 trillion in lost revenue he has promised and gets no credit for X which he has failed to solve. Obama did say some disingenuous things last night for sure, but this was not one of them.

if they actually let all the candidates running for president and not just "the two" (bullshit) parties speak the debates would be worth watching.

"OBAMA: "Independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Gov. Romney's pledge of not ... adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more."

THE FACTS: That's just one scenario. Obama's claim relies on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. The study, however, is more nuanced than Obama indicated.

The study concludes it would be impossible for Romney to meet all of his stated goals without shifting some of the tax burden from people who make more than $200,000 to people who make less.

In one scenario, the study says, Romney's proposal could result in a $2,000 tax increase for families who make less than $200,000 and have children.

Romney says his plan wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center's findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney's tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class. Congress, however, doesn't use those kinds of projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation."




If simpler tax legistlation stimulates growth, (which it always does), then tax revenues to the government will rise due to more people paying more income taxes.


.

Ahh yes, if we just grow the economy by a massive amount and call that X then it all makes sense. We should use that for all of our planning personally.

Why don't you borrow a million dollars you have no ability to repay on the theory that you will do 'something unspecified' with it to grow your personal finances by enough to repay it.
South Park summarized that theory as
1 - Collect Underpants
2 - ???
3 - Profit!

That is not the kind of economic policy I'd expect from any intelligent conservative.

Even the right leaning Washington post has said the counter-analysis is bogus
you can read more from them here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/wonkblogs-comprehensive-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/?print=1

Now THIS ^^^^^ I totally agree with.



Gary Johnson 2012!!





.

I still find it hilarious when someone asks if your a Republican or a Democrat, like those are your only choices. Personally I'm voting green. Go Jill Stine!

exactly.

Barry should get back to the golf course - ow, he sucks at that too.