StreetScooby

As you usually seem to do, you're too busy shooting the messenger to bother with the message. Did you read the article, and if so, what exactly didn't you like about their analysis? The TPC paper is a good read. The numbers they've come up with are for limited scenarios that may, or may not, end up occurring. They really didn't need to do this analysis to make their point. Considering they are pro-progressive tax structure, simply looking at Romney's tax proposal will lead one directly to TPC's conclusion. The magnitude of the numbers are questionable, especially considering they've assumed no net impact to Federal revenues related to increasing growth, which is very questionable, IMO. That's the whole point of Romney's tax plan - to increase growth. That is a necessary condition for us to get out of the fiscal mess the country is in. Obama is not going to grow the economy. That's crystal clear, even more so when one listens to his people say "this is the new normal". Bullshit on that. We are all engines of karma

You have mad math skillz We are all engines of karma

That's widely acknowledged, by those who make their living picking stocks, to be the result of the Fed's QE policies. We are all engines of karma

I think a lot of people, myself included, see a significant mismatch between Obama's word and his deeds. He is widely perceived as the most anti-business president we've had since FDR, and rightfully so, IMO. What Obama doesn't realize (...and how could he, since he's never really had a real job) is how much hard work actually goes into being successful in a competitive market environment. It's not easy. We are all engines of karma

I've been reading the Tax Policy Center (TPC) article that David Firestone seems to have based his critique of Romeny's tax plan on: ON THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF BASE-BROADENING INCOME TAX REFORM, along with referenced articles. The article is very well done, with assumptions clearly spelled out, and many references provided to boot. All of the referenced material is similarly well done. I'm still forming an opinion on it, but in the meantime, the WSJ came out today with an AEI analysis covering that TPC article. Thought I'd post it here, as they do a much better job than I can hope to (at this point in time ;): For what it's worth, the numbers being thrown out by various liberal pundits I've read seem to be those derived from the static analysis done by TPC. The entire purpose of the Romney plan is to grow the economy. That's the only way we have any hope of getting out of this fiscal mess. It's also clear that TPC is very pro-progressive tax structure, and anything that messes with that will be viewed negatively in their eyes. Simply reading over Romney's tax plan shows that the progressive character of our tax system will change, independent of the numbers bantered about. Mathematically Possible I've posted the entire article below, for your reading pleasure. Enjoy. ======================================= Mathematically Possible Correcting the false assumptions of Obama's tax gurus. It isn't easy being the intellectual frontmen for President Obama's re-election campaign, as the boys at the Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center are discovering. Their ballyhooed study of Mitt Romney's tax plan looks worse with each new examination. Mr. Romney's tax plan would cut income tax rates across the board by 20%, while cutting loopholes that mostly benefit those in the highest income classes. The Tax Policy Center claims it is "mathematically impossible" to finance the rate cut without jacking up taxes by $86 billion on the middle class and poor. Mr. Obama has jumped on the study to support his claims that Mr. Romney would raise taxes, though the Republican has proposed no such thing. (See "The Romney Hood Fairy Tale," August 8.) The study's biggest distortion is its raw assertion that Mr. Romney would refuse to close certain loopholes. In the appendix, the Tax Policy Center lists, among others, two giant tax deductions that it says would go untouched: the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings. The study claims that Mr. Romney won't close these because they are incentives for saving and investment. One problem: Nowhere do Mitt Romney or his advisers say that these deductions can't be touched. Senior economic adviser Glenn Hubbard says these deductions are definitely "on the table." And by the way, the municipal bond interest exclusion mainly serves to encourage states and cities to borrow and spend more, which is the opposite of a saving incentive. Many reform plans dating to Dick Armey's flat tax in 1995 have recommended eliminating both of these exemptions. Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute examined what happens to the Tax Policy Center math when this error is corrected. AEI economic research associate Matt Jensen found that "Both of these exclusions largely benefit the wealthy, and, according to the Treasury Department, added together their repeal would net upwards of $90 billion that could be redistributed to lower-income individuals. That would go a long way towards balancing the supposed $86 billion windfall for the rich and tax hike on the middle class and poor, and it could make the impossible suddenly possible." The AEI analysis warns that these numbers change from year to year, but it concludes that by eliminating these two deductions and a few other smaller ones, Mr. Romney can make his math add up. In other words, poof, no tax hike on the middle class. This won't stop the Obama campaign from making its false claims, but it ought to at least embarrass the media into questioning them. It should also embarrass the analysts at the Tax Policy Center who claim to be nonpartisan, above-the-fray economists but somehow always seem to provide analysis that serves those who want to raise tax rates. We are all engines of karma

These are far too many facts, Chuck. Stop it. We are all engines of karma

While I think you're a smart guy, billvon, remind me to never accuse you of being a neutral, always rational, observer. We are all engines of karma

Why bother? It's a non-partisan source. We are all engines of karma

Just the latest one that didn't get a single vote in the House or Senate. We are all engines of karma

What's not real about Romney's Tax Plan? You can find it here: Believe in America We are all engines of karma

You left out puppies... We are all engines of karma

I personally haven't read anything that says that, but a valid argument, IMO, is that it's within a states right to take such action. Whether it works or not remains to be seen. Isn't Mass. trying to pass a bill that effectively imposes price controls on the entire health industry? We are all engines of karma

Come on,... What point are you trying to address? You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can put it into words. We are all engines of karma

Then do me a favor, and stop using the phrase "right-wing" when talking to me. I have, twice now. We are all engines of karma

Yes, I know what both mean. What part of Romney's plan is not economically sound? What part of Obama's is? We are all engines of karma

If you ever spend time there, you'll find an enormous collection of articles spanning most viewpoints. We are all engines of karma

No problems. If you want to talk to me, that's fine. Let's just avoid talking about graffiti... We are all engines of karma

Yet another credentialed liberal with demonstrably manichean views. You guys never cease to amaze me. And exactly what point would that be? We are all engines of karma

I didn't think we were speaking to each other? We are all engines of karma

You really should branch out more from the NYTimes. Their articles are so far from balanced they can't even be used as a rational starting point for debate. I start my day with the RealClear*.com sites, usually RealClearHistory.com, then working my way through science and politics, followed by world and markets. Lots of views there. Try using one of those articles as a starting point for something we could agree would be rational debate. We are all engines of karma

Have you actually read up on this topic? What party was Abraham Lincoln a member of? We are all engines of karma

While others take pride in an arrogant view of others that in many cases is simply detached from reality. We are all engines of karma

And who might that be? We are all engines of karma

At least they have one. We are all engines of karma

Federal government spending matters more. There is too much of that going on. We are all engines of karma