I am glad you said that because you seemed to miss the point that this economist was THE Economist that Obama was referencing regarding Romney's plan!!!Get it???Hi Mr Duma,I don't get it so maybe you could help me understand. I checked the transcript and only found this.When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals can — are currently taking advantage of — if you take those all away — you don’t come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending. And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families.The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more. Now, that’s not my analysis; that’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this.http://uptownmagazine.com/2012/10/transcript-of-obama-v-romn...Now frankly, I don't see where Obama cited a specific study, especially since he used the plural, but for discussion purpose let's assume he did.That lead me to the links you provided from the Princeton economist Harvey Rosen, unfortunately that didn't help much either because from what I can tell, although questioning the study he did't appear to be one of the authors of the study.So did I get that wrong? Was Mr. Rosen an author of the study or not? And if he wasn't; why are you claiming he was as you did in your first post of this thread? And if he was, how is it that his now questioning the methodology used that you equate this to Obama being a liar? This is really simple stuff Mr Duma, either Obama accurately quoted the study as it existed at the time of his statement or he didn't. Any later attempt at explaining why someone viewed the study as flawed, whether accurate or not, is simply not germane to the question of whether Obama lied or misrepresented the study. Of note Mr. Rosen in his piece refers to the TPC in the 3rd party which seems a bit odd if he was one of the authors.https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdfAs I said, I remain a bit confused by all of this and would love to have you clear this up if you can, but for now at least, I'm kind of leaning to perhaps you being the liar in this case not President Obama.Moving on to something a hell of a lot more important than the above is the broader question of if Mitt's plan will work. By Mr Rosen's own admission "much of the debate over it has focused on what provisions would be politically and administratively feasible.".Now IMO that's a pretty important question don't you think? Perhaps I'm being too skeptical, but this all reminds me of a game of 3 card monte where certain people are trying to get me focused on a debate about whether something is mathematically possible, while taking my eyes of the probabilities of it actually happening. In short I know exactly what the tax cuts Mr. Romney proposes to cut.I have not been given one concrete example of the deductions he would eliminate and as such can't begin to handicap if I believe these deductions have any realistic chance of being repealed. (As I recall you had some issues with the home mortgage deduction being eliminated for example)I am asked to accept on faith all of the glorious trickle down effects the change in tax policy would create, i.e. faster growing economy, despite ample evidence from the past that previous tax cuts didn't deliver these effects as promised. Yeah, I guess I'll concede that the math could add up, of course mathematically I have a chance of winning the Power Ball lottery as well but I'm not likely to mortgage my house and invest the proceeds it in the lottery."Feasible" Mr Duma matters.B
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<