Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TroyD

(4,551 posts)
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 10:38 PM Sep 2012

Washington Post Editorial Board rips Romney a new one over Tax plan

By Editorial Board, Saturday, September 15

FOR SEVERAL weeks, we’ve been asking Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to explain how he can cut taxes, as promised, without adding to the nation’s debt, as also promised. Now he’s effectively let the cat out of the bag: He can’t.

Mr. Romney’s tax plan calls for reducing income tax rates by 20 percent. The top bracket would go from 35 percent to 28 percent. He has said that he can do this in a revenue-neutral way by eliminating loopholes. While the rich might pay more, he has said, the middle class would pay less.

(SNIP)

In other words, we are back to counting on magic — to “dynamic scoring,” the voodoo economics of the Reagan era, the wishful thinking of President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that helped turn a surplus into the deficit now weighing the nation’s economy. Cut taxes and hope the economy grows faster than predicted.

At a time when the nation is already on course to build up a debt so large that interest payments alone will begin to drown us, Mr. Romney wants to reduce taxes further, with — it now appears — no plan to make up the difference. It almost takes your breath away.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-confession/2012/09/15/863d2c14-febf-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_print.html
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Cha

(296,848 posts)
2. That's what Eastwood was gushing about in his endorsement
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:08 PM
Sep 2012

of willard mitt romney. "The Tax Plan" Paraphrasing.. Never mind..here's the quote..

"Eastwood: "This is very nice to be here today, tonight, today. Let's clear the smoke.

I was doing a picture in early 2000s called Mystic River in his home state. At that time Gov. Romney was running for governor. I said, God this guy is too handsome to be governor but he does look like he could be president. As the years have gone by I'm beginning to think even more so that."

"He's going to restore a decent tax system that we need badly so that there is a fairness and people are not pitted against one another of whose paying taxes and who isn't."

"Also we don't want anybody taking away the Olympic medals, tax wise, from the Olympic athletes. The government is talking about getting a couple of nickles."

"It's now more important than ever that we need Gov. Romney and I'm going to be voting for him as I know most of you will be ... we've got to just spread the word and get the whole country behind this..."


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/clint-eastwood-at-romney-fundraiser-131073.html

So Freaking SHALLOW, Clint..and then ya went on to be made a national joke with your Chair.
Eastwooding, anyone?

Willard Needs to Release his TAX RETURNS
 

RLBaty

(335 posts)
3. That "loophole" angle; an easy $1 Billion or more in new revenue!
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:44 PM
Sep 2012

The article notes, in part:

> (W)hile closing loopholes sounds good — Make those oil companies pay! —
> the costliest ones are cherished by most Americans. These are tax provisions
> that promote home ownership, charitable giving, and employer-provided
> health care and that allow taxpayers to deduct their state and local income
> taxes. Limiting or eliminating these popular “loopholes” would be extremely
> difficult.

I have yet to see where anyone has gotten Romney, or Obama, to speak to the issue as to what their tax plans are going to be for that little provision in the law that allows "ministers" to receive income tax free income if it's designated as "housing" and used for "housing".

I have written about that recently here on the DU as well as the Forbes blogs.

Still, no one seems to have gotten the Obama and Romney position on that.

It's certainly one loophole that should be easy to close; considering it is, by some accounts, UNconstitutional on its face and the Freedom From Religion Foundation is currently in federal court seeking such a decision.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty














Major Nikon

(36,818 posts)
5. It's the same fucking plan the GOPhers have had since Raygun
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:29 AM
Sep 2012

1) Cut taxes

2) Increase military spending

3) Reduce the deficit

It only makes sense to those who lack the cognitive ability to stick a round peg in a round hole, or in other words their base.

 

j3161usa

(44 posts)
6. Wow! Not Again!
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:37 AM
Sep 2012

What is it with politicians that they can't seem to do anything but rehash the same ol ideas---trash, don't work, causes more problems than they solve, gets people (soldiers) killed unnecessarily, and ends up on somebody else to fix! This man is too busy trying to imulate ronald reagan to see how short-signted and misinformed he is. shame, and he just may still end up our president!

 

cleduc

(653 posts)
7. This will provide additional fodder for the Oct 3rd economic debate
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:29 AM
Sep 2012

and Bill Clinton's claim that the basic arithmetic of Romney's plan simply doesn't add up.

As much as one might criticize Obama's economic results (which I blame more on the GOP house and things beyond Obama's control), with a plan as bad in arithmetic as Romney's, it is to too flawed for Romney to win that debate which most folks feel he must if he's going to stage any sort of a political comeback in this election. And you just know that the fact checkers will have a field day with Romney's lies uttered during that debate because he hasn't been able to sustain any sort of credible attack with the truth.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,392 posts)
8. Not to mention the fact that he's itching to take us to war
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:30 AM
Sep 2012

with somebody (esp. Iran). Wanna bet that there's a "war tax" buried in his plans somewhere if he does?

progree

(10,892 posts)
9. "While the rich might pay more, he has said" - isn't this raising taxes on the job creators?
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:53 PM
Sep 2012

"While the rich might pay more, he has said, the middle class would pay less. "

Has anybody been over to FreeRepublic (who has the stomach for it, I don't)? They must be F U R I O U S about Romney advocating taxing the "job creators" more. Somebody should ask Romney whose tax plan -- his or Obama's -- will raise taxes on the wealthy (err "job creators&quot more?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another one where Romney is committing the crime of not cutting the taxes on the "job creators" (though he doesn't say he is raising their taxes):

Romney says he won’t cut taxes on wealthy Americans, By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Sun, Sep 9, 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014224357

{My words unless in quotations}: That he is going to pay for the 20% across the board tax rate reduction by eliminating loopholes and deductions for high-income earners. He argued that his plan would in effect lower taxes for middle class Americans while keeping tax rates the same for wealthy Americans. "And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers."
But asked about "the specifics of how you get into this math," Romney declined to offer any additional details, suggesting the "principals" of his plan should be enough for Americans to judge his tax proposals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weren't the Republicans last December requiring that Obama "pay for" extending a middle class (and lower class) tax cut -- the partial payroll tax holiday -- while arguing that their proposals for tax cuts for the wealthy don't need to be paid for because obviously, quite obviously tax cuts for the "job creators" create more jobs and boost revenue growth and so more than pay for themselves blah blah dee blah?


progree

(10,892 posts)
10. Democratic policies beat RepubliCON policies (see near bottom for job creation record of presidents)
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:13 PM
Sep 2012
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs

Factoids (official source follows):

# Under Obama there have been 30 straight months of private sector job growth (since February 2010), totaling 4.6 million jobs (thru August 2012 with July & August preliminary). Total job growth during this period is 4.1 million jobs ( 0.5 million government jobs were lost ).

# The economy Bush handed to Obama lost 4.3 million jobs during the last 10 months of the Bush administration. Furthermore, at the end of the Bush administration the rate of job losses was accelerating -- losing 2.28 million jobs just in his last 3 months -- an average of 760,000 lost jobs a month (the average of the last 3 months of the Bush presidency).

# 2.8 million payroll jobs have been created under Obama since June 2009 (that's when the recession ended according to the NBER (nber.org, the official arbiter of when the economic turning points occur), and only 5 months since Obama took office) (thru August 2012 with July & August preliminary) . Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency

# 3.5 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (thru August 2012 with July & August preliminary) (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)

# Bush's record: created 1.1 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: 1,080, 1,753, 673 ). Yes, it is ironic that a supposed "small government conservative" ended up creating government jobs and destroying private sector jobs.

If someone says it is cherry-picking to compare Obama's last 30 months to Bush's entire presidency, then here are 3 comparable comparisons:

(1.) Comparing the last 30 months of Bush and Obama (so far, thru August 2012): Bush lost 2.6 million jobs, while Obama gained 4.1 million jobs.

(2.) Comparing the comparable 30 months of Bush and Obama's first term (3/1/02 thru 8/31/04 for Bush, 3/1/10 thru 8/31/12 for Obama): Bush gained 1.2 million jobs, while Obama gained 4.1 million jobs.

(3.) Comparing the first 43 months of Bush and Obama (from the beginning of each's first term through August 2004 (for Bush) and through August 2012 (for Obama)): Bush lost 856,000 jobs, while Obama lost 261,000 jobs.

.-------------------------------------------.

# The Clinton economy created 22.7 million payroll jobs of which 20.8 million were in the private sector

# If some rightie claims that Obama increased the federal workforce (as if that was bad), well that is true: Obama increased the federal workforce by 143,000, or 5.1%. But note that Romney as governor increased the number of Massachusetts state employees by 5.5%. Source: "Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22", ABC News, 6/6/12 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Terms, Average Annual % Increases :

(Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon vs. Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican)

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Average Average [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] number of Jobs at Annual [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Jobs start of Percentage[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Created Term Increase [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] President Per Month Millions In Jobs [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] ========= ========= ======== ======= [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Johnson 196,500 57.3 4.12% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Carter 215,396 80.7 3.20% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Truman 93,570 41.4 2.71% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Clinton 236,875 109.7 2.59% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Nixon 137,030 69.4 2.37% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Kennedy 105,059 53.7 2.35% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Reagan 167,729 91.0 2.21% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Ford 71,483 78.6 1.09% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Eisenhower 36,854 50.1 0.88% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] G.H. Bush 54,021 107.1 0.61% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] G.W. Bush 11,406 132.5 0.10% [/font]


Official sources of information for the above:

# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left

This one compares all post-WWII presidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Washington Post Editorial...