http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-policy-center-spotlight-romney-173604062.html
Queue the nutjobs...
Queue the nutjobs...
Tax Policy Center: Romneys Plan Not Feasible
- Thread starter WhatsHisNuts
- Start date
Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote
By Erik Wasson and Daniel Strauss - 05/16/12 04:30 PM ET
A budget resolution based on President Obama?s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday.
In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president?s blueprint.
It?s the second year in a row the Senate has voted down Obama?s budget.
Obama's 2012 budget failed 97 to 0 last May after Obama himself last April said he wanted deeper deficit cuts.
The House earlier this year unanimously rejected Obama's budget.
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama?s budget because it did not include policy report language.
Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.
The Senate also voted on four GOP budget blueprints, which were all defeated.
By Erik Wasson and Daniel Strauss - 05/16/12 04:30 PM ET
A budget resolution based on President Obama?s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday.
In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president?s blueprint.
It?s the second year in a row the Senate has voted down Obama?s budget.
Obama's 2012 budget failed 97 to 0 last May after Obama himself last April said he wanted deeper deficit cuts.
The House earlier this year unanimously rejected Obama's budget.
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama?s budget because it did not include policy report language.
Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.
The Senate also voted on four GOP budget blueprints, which were all defeated.
House Votes 414-0 to Reject Obama?s Budget Plan
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:39am by Billy Hallowell
Print ?
Email ?
Comments (52)
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) ? Republicans are ready to push through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama?s call to raise taxes on the rich.
The blueprint by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was headed for all but certain House passage Thursday, mostly along party lines. It faces a demise that is just as sure in the Democratic-run Senate, which plans to ignore it, but the battle remains significant because of the clarity with which it contrasts the two parties? budgetary visions for voters.
(Related: ?Let?s Not Wait Until We Have a Crisis?: Paul Ryan Pleads for Fiscal Reform in Budget Debate)
Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama and Democrats were ready to boost taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add spending for roads and schools and cull more modest savings from domestic programs.
?They?re choosing the next election over the next generation,? Ryan said, deriding Democrats? plans as far too timid. He added, ?If we don?t tackle these fiscal problems soon, they?re going to tackle us as a country.?
Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load.
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:39am by Billy Hallowell
Print ?
Email ?
Comments (52)
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) ? Republicans are ready to push through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama?s call to raise taxes on the rich.
The blueprint by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was headed for all but certain House passage Thursday, mostly along party lines. It faces a demise that is just as sure in the Democratic-run Senate, which plans to ignore it, but the battle remains significant because of the clarity with which it contrasts the two parties? budgetary visions for voters.
(Related: ?Let?s Not Wait Until We Have a Crisis?: Paul Ryan Pleads for Fiscal Reform in Budget Debate)
Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama and Democrats were ready to boost taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add spending for roads and schools and cull more modest savings from domestic programs.
?They?re choosing the next election over the next generation,? Ryan said, deriding Democrats? plans as far too timid. He added, ?If we don?t tackle these fiscal problems soon, they?re going to tackle us as a country.?
Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load.
Wait a second. Your candidate is telling you to vote for him because he is going to reduce the debt and improve the economy, but, as Obama pointed out already, the math doesn't add up. Let's try to stay on topic for a coupe minutes. Do you have a response? This can't give you warm fuzzies about Romney, because I know how you feel about liars.
The Tax Policy Center?s $5 Trillion Blunder: ?Nonpartisan? nonsense
Posted by Alan Reynolds
In ?The $5 Trillion Question: How Big Is Romney?s Cut? Wall Street Journal reporters Damlan Paletta and John D. McKinnon echo, once again, the journalistic convention of contrasting ?the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center? with ?the conservative American Enterprise Institute.? In the English language, the opposite of ?conservative? is not ?nonpartisan.? On the contrary, the phrase ?nonpartisan? applies equally to the American Enterprise Institute (or Cato Institute) as it does to Tax Policy Center (TPC) ? a front for the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. To be ?nonpartisan? does not mean non-ideological, unbiased or even competent. It simply means following a few rules so the IRS will allow the organization to receive tax-deductible contributions. Governor Romney wants to severely curb such deductions (including his own), which does not necessarily make the TPC a disinterested observer, even if there really were one or two closet Republicans (or even non-Keynesians) at the TPC.
The U.S. already cut marginal tax rates across-the-board by more than 20 percent in 1964 and 1984 (the 1981 law, like that of 2001, was foolishly phased-in). In both cases, the Table shows that revenues from the individual income tax were higher than before, as a share of GDP. The economy grew much faster too, raising payroll and corporate tax receipts. Until the TPC can explain how and why that happened, they cannot even pretend to predict that Romney?s more modest tax reform will lose any revenue, much less $5 trillion. Incidentally, deductions were not significantly curbed in the tax laws of 1964 or 1981, or in the Tax Reform of 1986 (which merely substituted reduced itemized deductions for a much larger standard deduction). If Romney puts a cap on deductions, either as a percentage of AGI or as a dollar limit, the net effect of his plan would raise revenues, particularly from people like Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney (who deduct millions in charitable contributions).
The Tax Policy Center?s fundamental error is to assume no behavioral response at all to lower tax rates ? an ?elasticity of taxable income? (ETI) of zero. The academic evidence is that ETI is at least 0.4 for all taxpayers, as Martin Feldstein observed, mostly because ETI is above 1.0 for the top 1 percent, as I recently explained in the Journal. Cut top rates and the rich report more income; raise top rates and much of their income disappears ? through reduced economic activity and increased avoidance.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VMVVR_8oXxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Alan Reynolds just can't take it. Partisan guys just can't handle it when someone posts facts as facts....there's got to be an ulterior motive, hence the "Liberal Media" horse shit.
