Princeton economist cited by Obama says Obama lying about study on Romney tax plan

BravoWhiskey5280

BravoWhiskey5280

Active member
The Obama campaign has been doing everything they can in order to project Romney’s tax plan as infeasible. Since Mitt Romney effectively laid out his ‘revenue-neutral’ tax plan, the Obama campaign is saying that it would, first, raise taxes on the middle class …and second, add to the deficit. They did this by citing Princeton economist Harvey Rosen. Rosen wasn’t exactly thrilled about this, as it seemed to totally contradict his study. The Weekly Standard reports on the Obama campaign’s claim:“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…”The email was quite adamant on the fact that the Obama campaign committed a major foul against professor Harvey Rosen’s report. Also, it seems that even the professor was not sure how the Obama campaign arrived at the conclusion it did. Rosen writes:“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.”Basically, the incumbent President misrepresented a study, bending it to fit his campaign’s talking points. I’m not sure which is more dishonest …lying about Romney’s tax plan or lying about research to support their conclusions.PS - We can play this posting a bias media source game all day long.
 
ohfuckilovecocks.jpg
 
Wow another great example of spin. Distracting the public with petty accusation while suspending economic reality.
What is omitted from the study?
That families making more than $100,000 per year would have to pay $81 billion more in taxes under Romney's tax plan, a 12 percent increase. But his paper did not explicitly say whether these families, whose incomes he assumes would be rising, would actually pay a higher tax rate.Rosen's conclusion that Romney's tax plan is mathematically possible rests on a questionable assumption: namely that Romney's tax cuts for the rich would lead to robust economic growth. In fact, economic growth sharply slowed during the Bush administration, when President George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich. Brad DeLong, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, also notes that President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich did not lead to much stronger economic growth either.Rosen clarified in his interview with HuffPost that his paper provides different scenarios for income growth -- ranging from 0 percent to 7 percent -- and that Romney's tax plan is mathematically possible when assuming modest income growth.A number of analysts, including those at the Tax Policy Center, have found that Romney's tax plan would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to be mathematically possible. But Rosen told The Huffington Post that he disagrees."I am saying that mathematically it can work," Rosen said. "It is mathematically possible."
 
Here is the realissue lassaiz faire economics, burdenning the most vulnerable with taxes and social spending cuts, and deregulation.
The afforementioned economist Fieldstein (harvard prof.) was a major architect of deregulation in the Reagan administartion, president of the National bureau of Economic Reasearch, and ran the boards of AIG and AIG financial products (earned more than 6 million). The derivative market he helped create destroyed the economy. Who has the most to gain if Romney wins and implements these tax plans? Who benefits from deregulation? Oh yeah the princeton chap, Rosen, he participated in a reassearch project to promote investment in a deregulated Icelandic economy, funded by the Icelandic board of trade... well we know what happened to the Icelandic economy....
When opportunists like these have the attention of the government it is a good indicator that the financial sector has corrupted the political system, is actively subverting the economic system and has infiltrated the academic world.
Hell these guys have written hundreds of papers and none of them has focussed on the dangers of unregulated financial derivatives or financial-industry compensation.
Go check out "Inside Job"
Obama referenced the paper in question to call attention to the surrealism of Romeny's plan.... In most circles it is acceptable and even encouraged to be critical of the academic works of others.

 
Who the fuck comes up with this shit?

If you actually look at graphs of tax rate vs various metrics of economic growth, you can see there's almost no correlation. There's just way too many other factors affecting the economy for a simple comparison of tax rate to economic growth to reveal any valuable information about the effect of taxes on economic growth.

18899-microsoft-excel-chart-showing-relationship-among-u-s-gdp-tax.jpg


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top