Here's the tax policy center's statement:

Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed - including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment - would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks - like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance - are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality- the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households. [Tax Policy Center, 8/1/12]

At issue is whether they assumed the right tax breaks would be eliminated. For example, there is another tax break that they could have chosen which is the non-inclusion of interest income from state and municipal bonds. As I understand it, this results in a large savings for upper income individuals. (Obama had proposed eliminating this for those earning over $250,000 but it didn't go anywhere.) There are $3 trillion of muni bonds outstanding, so the potential tax on the annual interest is a reasonably large number. I agree that it is now incumbent on Romney to fill in the details.

danivon wrote:You appear to be responding to a completely different statement here. I was talking about how Romney's tax plans benefit Romney and his heirs. You are talking about the possibility that he will increase taxes on other people.

Nope. I'm going farther. I believe, when the smoke clears, the code will be simpler and few, if any, in the middle or lower classes will experience an increase.

You've jumped the shark old man. Please point to ROMNEY saying this is his policy. Please point to a ROMNEY plan that proposes raising taxes on lower income folks while lowering them for himself and others like him.

I can easily point to Romney's proposals that lower taxes for him. There were many links in that post which explain it all.

Sure.

However, to address the point you are responding with, if he is true to his word that his tax policy would help reduce the deficit, he either needs to see phenomenal growth in GDP (not just the high end of historical trends, but sustained growth the like of which the USA has never seen in modern times), or increases in tax revenue from somewhere.

GDP will grow by virtue of removing a lot of the obstacles President Obama has constructed. Introducing certainty into tax policy and regulation will also help.

I can understand your issue with the Tax Policy Centre - they crunched numbers on the Romney Plan. The problem for Romney is that they had to make a lot of assumptions in order for his plan to meet his promises.

Yeah, assumptions are dangerous. If you do not know what the intended outcome is, you can jump to whatever you want.

Again, the ridiculous part is the idea that Romney is going to raise taxes. He won't. Anyone with a pulse and a brain cell knows that to be the case. Ryan often talked about lowering the rates and broadening the base. That's more likely.

In the end, when all is said and done, they will not do anything to give a result such as this group predicts.

I can understand your problem with Ezra Klein, who has worked out that the tax cuts will, contra Romney's promise, benefit the top 1%, simply because there is no way to balance the figures for that category.

Part of the issue is, of course, that Romney has not filled in the details of how his plan would work. Perhaps Ryan coming aboard will help flesh things out. Of course, that meat may not be quite so tasty to everyone.

On the other hand, we know what President Obama will do: take a sad song and make it sadder.

Your point was that 'Liberals' stoop low, and that's what the title of the thread is about. You brought up an ad where a guy accuses Romney of 'murder'. My response includes finding a conservative who stoops as low, accusing Obama of being a likely dictator and supporter of mass murder. Does it matter how 'connected' they are? Not really. She's not running for councilman, she's running for Congress (and has also been prepared to run for the Senate)

It's not "a guy" accusing Romney of "murder." It's a SuperPac run by Obama's former deputy chief of staff and with direct connections to the White House.

That you would compare that with some unknown person is quite remarkable.

How about this lie from the Obama campaign about this ad:

Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter told CNN that it is illegal for the campaign to coordinate with Priorities USA Action.

"By law, we don't have anything to do with their ads," she said. "I don't know the facts of when Joe Soptic's wife got sick or when she died. But as I said before, I do know the facts of what Mitt Romney did with GS Steel. I do know the facts of how Joe Soptic lost his job, lost his health care."

Yet, she conducted a telephone interview with him long before the ad.

But Cutter hosted an Obama campaign conference call in May in which Soptic told reporters the very story featured in the Priorities spot.

Both the campaign and the Priorities USA Action said there was no coordination about Soptic’s appearances. In the campaign’s ad, Soptic speaks only about the plant. In the Priorities spot, he tells the personal story he relayed during the Obama campaign conference call.

“We have no idea when Priorities shot their spot,” an Obama campaign official said. “We’re not allowed to coordinate with them – but we can tell you it wasn’t when we shot ours.”

The aide didn’t answer questions about when the Obama campaign shot its Soptic footage or explain Cutter’s televised statement.

Whatever the timeline regarding when commercials were shot, Cutter talked to Soptic in May, then lied about it when this ad was released.

So, all these folks around Obama are lying--and you want to drag in some nominee for Congress who no one has or ever will hear of?

Not a great comp--kind of like comparing a 30 foot mobile home with Trump Towers: they're both places to live, but not very similar. In your comparison, both are over the top, but one is serious and one is someone with no genuine stage.

Now, the VP says the Republicans want to put people "back in chains." Hmm, what do you suppose he means?

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. I'm going farther. I believe, when the smoke clears, the code will be simpler and few, if any, in the middle or lower classes will experience an increase.

Hmm. I'll file that for later in the post...

However, to address the point you are responding with, if he is true to his word that his tax policy would help reduce the deficit, he either needs to see phenomenal growth in GDP (not just the high end of historical trends, but sustained growth the like of which the USA has never seen in modern times), or increases in tax revenue from somewhere.

GDP will grow by virtue of removing a lot of the obstacles President Obama has constructed. Introducing certainty into tax policy and regulation will also help.

At what rate? The TPC used the most generous projections from Romney's own people, and it still was not enough. You think the USA will grow like China has for the last decade?

So come on, what annual rate do you think the US economy will grow at after Romney waves his magic wand?

Yeah, assumptions are dangerous. If you do not know what the intended outcome is, you can jump to whatever you want.

Some of the assumptions they made were things like that the tax breaks would be hit for people on over $200,000 before anyone under that amount. Which seems pretty generous to Romney as well.

Again, the ridiculous part is the idea that Romney is going to raise taxes. He won't. Anyone with a pulse and a brain cell knows that to be the case. Ryan often talked about lowering the rates and broadening the base. That's more likely.

You do realise that 'broadening the base' is the same thing as increasing taxes. And doing so for a fairly large number of people on below average income. Which contradicts your 'belief' at the start of the post.

However, the 2001-3 Bush tax cuts also narrowed the base (which is why it's always odd to see people who support them also moaning at nearly half of Americans not paying Federal Income Tax). If Romney extends them permanently, as he has said he would, that doesn't square with broadening the base. Clearly something has to give.

In the end, when all is said and done, they will not do anything to give a result such as this group predicts.

I can agree with that. Either they won't get elected, or it will be worse than they predict. Because the TPC used about the most genrous assumptions they could on Romney's plan and his pledges. I suggest that you actually read the TPC analysis rather than just assuming they are biased because they don't come to the conclusion you want to see.

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, the VP says the Republicans want to put people "back in chains." Hmm, what do you suppose he means?

The chains of debt? It was in the context of talking about freeing up Wall Street and the banks.

Certainly the use of 'chains' imagery connected with debt is quite common. The Jubilee 2000 campaign to have Third World debt cancelled uses a breaking chain as part of its logo.

I'm sure you have a far darker image in mind, though.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, the VP says the Republicans want to put people "back in chains." Hmm, what do you suppose he means?

The chains of debt? It was in the context of talking about freeing up Wall Street and the banks.

Certainly the use of 'chains' imagery connected with debt is quite common. The Jubilee 2000 campaign to have Third World debt cancelled uses a breaking chain as part of its logo.

I'm sure you have a far darker image in mind, though.

Romney will put us back in the chains of debt . . . uh huh.

So then, Obama has set us free . . . by adding what will be nearly $6T in debt in his first (only) term?

I think Biden the loose cannon had the "far darker image in mind" too.

It's what liberals in the media refer to as a "dog whistle."

Ray Jay wrote:At issue is whether they assumed the right tax breaks would be eliminated. For example, there is another tax break that they could have chosen which is the non-inclusion of interest income from state and municipal bonds. As I understand it, this results in a large savings for upper income individuals. (Obama had proposed eliminating this for those earning over $250,000 but it didn't go anywhere.) There are $3 trillion of muni bonds outstanding, so the potential tax on the annual interest is a reasonably large number.

I thought muni bonds were tax exempt, but having looked i up apparently the Fed can tax the interest.

So what is the usual interest rate for a muni bond? If it's an average of 5%, that would mean on the $3T, there is about $150bn of interest. Which at a tax rate of about 33% would be $50bn. I guess that's a fairly large chunk, if you can tax them all.

I agree that it is now incumbent on Romney to fill in the details.

Sure. he's having difficultly at the moment making it clear where he stands on Medicare:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/au ... n-medicare

Since the announcement of Ryan as Romney's vice-presidential pick, the Republican challenger has faced persistent questioning over where he stands. The Romney team has been left vulnerable, in part because it has been sending out mixed messages.

Romney, in a rare press conference on Monday night in Florida, repeatedly refused to say whether he backed Ryan's Medicare reform plan. Some of advisers have gone on television to say publicly that he wholly and enthusiastically endorsed Ryan's budget proposals and would, if president, have signed it. Others have sought to distance him from it, saying Romney was running on his own plan.

At the Miami press conference, Romney insisted there was no contradiction. "I'm sure there are places that my budget is different than his, but we're on the same page," Romney said. "My plan for Medicare is very similar to his plan for Medicare."

Still, he has the Convention and a couple of months, there's still to put forward what his plan means.

danivon wrote:I'm sure you have a far darker image in mind, though.

Well, considering he was talking to a predominatly African American audience and the comment was "put y'all back in chains" , I think we are pretty spot on in our belief that the "far darker image" was what he was actually trying to imply.

Was it 'predominantly' black? All I've seen is that there were 'several hundred' black people but not the proportion or the total audience number.

danivon wrote:Was it 'predominantly' black? All I've seen is that there were 'several hundred' black people but not the proportion or the total audience number.

I was curious about this same matter and worked to find photos of the audience. Based on the one audience photo I found (of the real audience, not the folks behind the Veep) it was indeed predominantly black. Then this AM I read the following in an editorial (signed by the editorial board) in the WP: "Mr. Biden told a heavily African American audience that Republican Mitt Romney, if elected president, was 'going to put y’all back in chains.'"

If the NAACP and a bunch of black opinion leaders get all up in arms then I think we could conclude that Biden was being racist.
If Romney and fox commentators get all up in arms, I think we can conclude that they have had a paucity of opportunity for out rage.

Joe Biden is the man who famously told a man in a wheelchair to stand up for his rights.
He must be kept around if for nothing more than the whimsy his gaffes produce.

I noticed that today Democrats are responding to Ryans declarations about the Stimulus and the energy programs by quoting Paul Ryans letters requesting stimulus and energy innovation monies for Wisconsin companies...
Which is a more effective use of a candidates words? Piling on a verbal gaffe by an amiable sort given to verbal gaffes, or the juxtapostion of Ryans claims versus his claims in writing?
Just wondering...

rickyp wrote:If the NAACP and a bunch of black opinion leaders get all up in arms then I think we could conclude that Biden was being racist.
If Romney and fox commentators get all up in arms, I think we can conclude that they have had a paucity of opportunity for out rage...

This is a false standard because the NAACP is politically biased. Imagine if a white Republican has made the comment instead of a white Democrat, how do you think the NAACP would have reacted.

archduke

This is a false standard because the NAACP is politically biased. Imagine if a white Republican has made the comment instead of a white Democrat, how do you think the NAACP would have reacted.

The NAACP is going to excuse genuinely racist language because of political bias?
I agree that they have a political bias. But the point being that if they comment even though they have a bias .... then there's something genuine there. Blacks aren't going to thank Mitt or Sarah Palin for jumping to their defence ... They know who's most likely to act in their interests... Even if he is kinda like the typsy uncle at the wedding at times... (hence the bias)

If a white republican had made the comment it would have been more interesting in that he was contradicting Romney on the wisdom of "unshackling Wall Street". And I'm pretty sure the gaffe would not have been such a focus.
Bidens gaffe has brought wide attention to the unshacking Wall Street comment, which probably wouldn't have made the press if not for his verbal ineptitude.
I wonder how the majority of Americans feel about "unshackling Wall Street"? And I wonder if this isn't the enduring image from this foofarah?

I don't think it is a racist comment against African-Americans as much as a racist comment against white Republicans suggesting that they want African Americans to be slaves. I don't find that to be amiable in any way. The effect is that you tag Republicans as racist whenever they propose a policy change as opposed to debating substantively on the issues. It's happened to me on these pages as well, and it isn't fun.

rickyp wrote:If the NAACP and a bunch of black opinion leaders get all up in arms then I think we could conclude that Biden was being racist.
If Romney and fox commentators get all up in arms, I think we can conclude that they have had a paucity of opportunity for out rage.

Dear oh dear. I don't think the accusation against Biden is that he was being racist towards the black folks in the audience. It seems to be that he was making Romney out to be a racist, by using a metaphor about chaining people, aimed at stirring up the black folks in the audience. It could be construed as 'reverse-racism'.

Still the context of the comments is that he was responding to Romney and Ryan talking about how banks and other companies are shackled, and those shackles need to be broken. The problem with that, as far as some are concerned, is that a lot of the 'red tape' on financial institutions is about stopping them from ripping off customers (not that they don't find ways).

I noticed that today Democrats are responding to Ryans declarations about the Stimulus and the energy programs by quoting Paul Ryans letters requesting stimulus and energy innovation monies for Wisconsin companies...
Which is a more effective use of a candidates words? Piling on a verbal gaffe by an amiable sort given to verbal gaffes, or the juxtapostion of Ryans claims versus his claims in writing?

it is a shame that this comes after your first few lines. Those will be read first, and are patently ridiculous, and so these at the end will be ignored/dismissed. You really are your own worst enemy sometimes.

It is interesting to ask what Ryan's stance has been in the past on fiscal matters, his voting record on tax cuts that weren't paid for and extended the deficit, or for the stimulus plans. It is also always intersting to see how 'fiscally conservative' a politician is when it comes to pork for their own district/state. There are pressures, of course, to get something for local voters out of DC. Has Ryan succumbed to the allure?