Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan

[ChoomCzar]

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 can check the math that shows Romney's plan is mathematically possible here.

[joe bloe]

Obama is a shameless liar. His representative, Stephanie Cutter, admitted on CNN that Obama's claim about Romney giving five trillion in tax breaks was not true.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/erin-burn...tax-cut-claim/

[SEE3772]

2009 - Harvey S. Rosen also said... in the Journal of Finance article[ that he co-wrote with two Federal Reserve Bank economists, Kristopher Gerardi and Paul S. Willen, that the size of a house that someone buys tends to be a good indicator of what their income will be later. “People can, on average, make reasonably good predictions of their future incomes and act on them in sensible ways by buying bigger houses.”

Harvey S. Rosen, another 'Keynesian Economics' genius...

[CJ7]

how the hell can anyone misrepresent his tax plan when he himself cant even explain it in detail?


ahem ....

Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.
Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.

Romney: My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. … I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans. … I will lower taxes on middle-income families.


trust him, he "said " so ... cough cough

[I B Hankering]

Odumbo, et al, lied when they claimed "Princeton economist Harvey Rosen . . . conceded that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

But in an e-mail to the Weekly Standard, Rosen denies that his study shows any such thing:

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. . . . an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."

[TexTushHog]

First off, the intial post is misleading. Rosen did no "work" nor did he publish a paper or a study on Romney's tax "plan." It's a working paper, which means no peer review. Second, Rosen uses dynamic scoring, a fraudulent system that assumes, contrary to history, that cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues over what they would have been with higher rates (and the same economic growth). As the miserable failure and massive deficits generated by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts show, that's pure fantasy.

The only study that has come close to approximating scoring the Romney "plan" wasby the Tax Policy Center. That found that it was mathematically impossible to do what Romney said he would do because there were not enough loopholes and deductions to close to have upper income tax payers to make up for the lost revenue of lower rates.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

First off, the intial post is misleading. Rosen did no "work" nor did he publish a paper or a study on Romney's tax "plan." It's a working paper, which means no peer review. Second, Rosen uses dynamic scoring, a fraudulent system that assumes, contrary to history, that cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues over what they would have been with higher rates (and the same economic growth). As the miserable failure and massive deficits generated by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts show, that's pure fantasy.

The only study that has come close to approximating scoring the Romney "plan" wasby the Tax Policy Center. That found that it was mathematically impossible to do what Romney said he would do because there were not enough loopholes and deductions to close to have upper income tax payers to make up for the lost revenue of lower rates.

But TTH, you are conveniently ignoring that Odumbo, et al, cited Rosen's work and they lied when they claimed "Princeton economist Harvey Rosen . . . conceded that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

But in an e-mail to the Weekly Standard, Rosen denies that his study shows any such thing:

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. . . . an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."

[Yssup Rider]

Fucking idiot

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pile of bullshit AKA Assup!

[Yssup Rider]

Buttfucking idiot wo can't get hookers to fuck him.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pile of bullshit AKA Assup!

[ChoomCzar]

Originally Posted by TexCumHog

contrary to history, that cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues over what they would have been with higher rates (and the same economic growth). As the miserable failure and massive deficits generated by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts show, that's pure fantasy.

At the conclusion of the Denver debate, you must have thought like Odumbo, that he won! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts all increased revenue.....I, and others, have proven that with facts multiple times in this forum.......

It's amazing what liberals will believe, even with facts to the contrary staring them in the face......of course, some of you may believe TexCumHog is lying, but I just think he's that stupid.....he just believes and says what his masters tell him....liberals don't think, they only feel....they won't read anything to expand their knowledge....

I wonder if TexCumHog's illegal alien clients, you know, the ones with the "soft tissue injuries" from car accidents, all made their $190 contribution to the Odumbo campaign......I'm sure TexCumHog got to give Odumbo BBBJTCCIM after his donation.....Odumbo sure loves getting head from older white gentlemen, especially if they have health issues!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Don't think that Texas tort reform is gonna be repealed or replaced with federal legislation anytime soon!