Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/07/972501/gop-strategist-admits-romney-is-witholding-details-of-his-tax-plan-to-avoid-criticism/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/elect...iticism/</a> <> GOP Strategist Says Romney Is Withholding Details Of His Tax Plan To Avoid Criticism By Josh Israel on Oct 7, 2012 at 11:46 am Republican consultant Mike Murphy, a former Romney strategist, said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that it is unfair to criticize Mitt Romney’s lack of specificity on how to pay for his proposed 20 percent income tax cut. Should Romney identify what loopholes he would cut to offset the tax cuts, Murphy argued, he would be criticized for doing so. Murphy argued: Here is the problem. You guys won’t give him any credit for closing loopholes, because like you guys, he won’t name the loopholes. Why? Because you’ll attack him for doing it. You attack him for not giving you a little target… and then you attack him when you get the target. Murphy’s argument is that if Romney is transparent with the American people about what tax loopholes he would close to offset the roughly $5 trillion such a 20 percent tax cut would cost — those proposals might be subject to scrutiny and criticism. What sort of “loopholes” might Romney include? Murphy suggested perhaps it might include reductions in how much families with mortgages can deduct their interest payments from their taxes. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that those deductions save taxpayers an average of $559 annually. <> Video of Murphy's statement is at the link. Gee... if Romney can't handle criticism from the American public now... how the heck is he gonna handle it as President? This is yet another lie in a long neverending string of lies from Team Romney. Truth is, Mitt isn't releasing any details of his tax plan because the vast majority of the American public wouldn't vote for him if they knew what they were. The tax loopholes Romney wants to close are the ones most beneficial to the middle class. That's why he's staying silent about them. Duh.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Truth is, Mitt isn't releasing any details of his tax plan because the vast majority of the American public wouldn't vote for him if they knew what they were.> That, and the fact that the math doesn't add up.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/...485.html</a> Here is more math.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Very faulty math. Start with "TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth.". No. It assumes "pro-growth tax reform" (that very phrase clues you in to the bias of the Weekly Standard, if you didn't already know) WILL not produce economic growth. Why? Because it hasn't in the past. The WS then goes on to do some fancy math all based on the idea that cutting taxes itself will produce growth. But that very idea is faulty. And once you start with a faulty premise, all that flows from it is also faulty. It's a dearly held idea by the right wing that tax cuts themselves will create growth, and nearly all the math in your link is based on that assumption. But our own recent history disproves that assumption. And without that assumption being true, Romney's math doesn't come close to adding up. Don't be fooled, Josh.
Originally Posted By andyll Clintons average GDP growth with tax increases: 5.8% Bushs with tax cuts: 4.66% Inflation Adjusted: Clinton: 3.88% Bush: 2.04% Percent change from preceding period chart at: <a href="http://www.bea.gov/National/" target="_blank">http://www.bea.gov/National/</a> If you find the chart that shows public vs private GDP you will also see that most of Bush's growth was from government spending. Supply side economics has been throughly debunked.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Reagan's economic growth also came with massive government spending, too. The GOP saying that the Democrats are the tax and spend party is like Donald Duck complaining that the guy sitting next to him on the bus isn't wearing any pants.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Spending under Bush increased by nearly 1 Trillion. Under Obama it has been nearly flat. The numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office: <a href="http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png" target="_blank">http://cdn.factcheck.org/Uploa...bama.png</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry Actually, Romney is now reaching out for help on how to make his tax plan work: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-frantically-figuring-out-how-tax-plan-could,29854/" target="_blank">http://www.theonion.com/articl...d,29854/</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates If we elect a man who refuses to tell us what he plans to do after he gets in office, then we get what we deserve.
Originally Posted By utahjosh "If we elect a man who refuses to tell us what he plans to do after he gets in office, then we get what we deserve." Kind of like signing a bill into law before finding out what's really in it?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Kind of like signing a bill into law before finding out what's really in it? >>> Funny thing: I would have pegged you as a supporter of the Patriot Act - I guess not.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Kind of like signing a bill into law before finding out what's really in it?<< This is a problem I have with modern day legislation. Just about any bill passed today is simply huge. There's no way legislators or executives can really know what's in those bills, so they have to rely on their staffs to find anything that is objectionable in them, and that in my opinion is a point of failure.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda And part of that problem fkurucz, is all of the ammendments that have absolutley NOTHING to do with the original bill itself. If they are so important, put them in their own bill.
Originally Posted By dshyates So Josh, do you think it is a good idea to make someone who absolutely REFUSES to reveal his agenda the most powerful man in the Universe?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Good one. But seriously, doesn't all this waffling by Romney ever get to you Josh? (Please, no IHOP jokes, I'm seriously wondering.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Personally, I don't think it's right that so many politicians (Romney is sure not the only one) present themselves as one way during campaigns and then govern a whole different way. He's made some pretty far right promises in this campaign. While I am glad that he might not go through with some of the more extreme rhetoric he foisted out there during the primaries, it's dirty pool to secure the nomination by making those statements, only to do a 180° in the general election. It's lying, no matter which way you look at it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In other words, I wish adults would act like adults. Give up on the notion that you'll get 100% of what you want every time. Stop insisting that politicians are going to line up 100% lockstep with an entire party's platform. Allow politicians to have core principles, so that voters can make an informed choice and be reasonable sure how someone will actually govern. Right now, Romney looks like that informercial guy with the question marks all over his jacket. He wants to be anything any voter wants him to be. That never works.
