Let me help you yet again with B:Thanks Mr Duma it certainly clears things up some about your sources, alas with regards to the rest of your assertions I fear it makes things worse.Rosen's paper did find that families making more than $100,000 per year would have to pay $81 billion more in taxes under Romney's tax plan, a 12 percent increase. But his paper did not explicitly say whether these families, whose incomes he assumes would be rising, would actually pay a higher tax rate.So the study did in fact demonstrate it was the middle class that would take it in the chin and any assertion otherwise is after the fact.I'd like to thank you as well for providing me with this.Rosen's conclusion that Romney's tax plan is mathematically possible rests on a questionable assumption: namely that Romney's tax cuts for the rich would lead to robust economic growth. In fact, economic growth sharply slowed during the Bush administration, when President George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich. Brad DeLong, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, also notes that President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich did not lead to much stronger economic growth either.Dovetails rather nicely with the other points I brought up don't you think? And then there is this.A number of analysts, including those at the Tax Policy Center, have found that Romney's tax plan would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to be mathematically possible. But Rosen may not be in that category. His analysis first would need to separate middle-class families from rich families for us to know.So it appears if I understand it correctly, Mr. Rosens own statements are a bit of a misrepresentation as well. Unless that is claiming not raising taxes on the middle class is possible mathematically only if you choose to ignore through averaging the large segment of the middle class that will have their taxes raised. But Princeton economist Harvey Rosen's paper analyzing Romney's tax plan didn't exactly look at families making between $100,000 and $200,000. Instead, it analyzed families making more than $100,000 per year and families making more than $200,000 per year. The second group is part of the first group, and Rosen did not separate the twoI am still waiting on your complete explanation for:Unlike you Mr Duma I don't make a habit of taking complex subjects and reducing them to stupid sound bites that I can't support. In the spirit of cooperation however I' make a few comments.1) How Bush policies brought us to the brinkI have never claimed anything was entirely Bush's fault but he was the President driving the bus for the last 8 years and it seems rather odd that on the one hand you believe if Mitt were elected president he could make everything better, while on the other, you don't believe Bush and the Republicans should bear any responsibility for bringing us to the brink. At a minimum Bush owns the huge deficit he delivered to us during what should have been good times where we could afford to pay our bills. At a minimum Bush owns a good chunk of the deregulation mess that led to many of the problems that ended in disaster. What is Obama's deficit reduction plan exactlyRaising taxes, cutting spending, growing the economy. Now admittedly with cutting spending and growing the economy it is little more than a promise. Of course that is all we have received from Mitt as well. The difference is where they have given us the details. Obama's tax increase will lead to a reduction in the deficit however small of a down payment you may wish to argue that might be. Mitt's only detailed proposals both will raise the deficit i.e. cutting taxes (he hasn't listed any actual elimination of deductions yet so we can't count them) & an increase in defense spending. How is Obama going to get people back to work an dhow is that different from that last 4 years.Well getting rid of a few obstructionist Republicans would be a great start. :<) The simple truth is the private sector job growth hasn't been all that bad. Of course when you have to replace all of the jobs lost during, and the first month or two after, the Bush administration in addition to the public sector jobs lost during Obama's first term (which Republicans have been screaming is a good thing) then not "all that bad" isn't necessarily all that good given the circumstances.So IMO it comes down to who you are going to trust. The guy who inherited a mess and has worked diligently to get us back on track and is showing steady if not spectacular improvement or the guy who is advocating going back to the governing philosophy of the administration who was in charge went we went into the "brink" to begin with. That's an easy decision for me.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. M