the 47% is what is in Romney's heart

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Supply side worked for a bit under Reagan because:
1. we were in a designed downturn, which is easier to recover from
2. the deficit brought investment into the US
and
3. Reagan did have to raise taxes again


Bush blew the surplus - actual Keyensianism is when the surplus is used during the down-turn, and replenished during the good times.
Good points. I think the way many glorify Reaganomics as being the system for all times is akin to the ways others glorify the methods used to keep carts/horses or the early railroad system running and how the system helped out for the time. Certain things work because of the setting one's in and the ways that culture was geared to make things possible---but if someone looked at bullet trains today in their development (or automobiles/cars) and said that we need to go back to the previous system, they'd be silly for doing so since electricity/gasoline are used today in ways to get things done that were not present in previous times.

As it is, Reaganomics never truly worked fully as much as people champion. It also had flaws and drawbacks that would be damaging for today..

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RedPaddy

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2012
2,526
79
✟3,110.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay, so how does anyone know how 47% of people "feel" ?
One way is to minister to them as Mitt has done. Feed them, counsel them, employ them, etc. Be amongst them.

Whether or not you believe Romney to be Christian or not, you have to admit he has done many good deeds without seeking the praise of man.

I don't know if you recall, but I posted a thread a week or two back seeking any of these positive stories about obama helping others with this time and talent with no remuneration or compensation. The giant sucking sound heard was the lack of any evidence of obama ever doing anything of the sort.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
One way is to minister to them as Mitt has done. Feed them, counsel them, employ them, etc. Be amongst them.

Whether or not you believe Romney to be Christian or not, you have to admit he has done many good deeds without seeking the praise of man.

I don't know if you recall, but I posted a thread a week or two back seeking any of these positive stories about obama helping others with this time and talent with no remuneration or compensation. The giant sucking sound heard was the lack of any evidence of obama ever doing anything of the sort.

How many of "the 47%" has Gov. Romney 'ministered to' ? I've known a fair number of "47%ers" - and Gov. Romney is factually wrong about many of "them".

My dad would never talk about helping others -- and many people don't. Because it is a way of life, not extraordinary and certainly not to be used as "advertising".

I have known many, many people who have helped others; even when it came at tremendous personal cost to themselves. People who did without the food they actually needed, so that others could eat.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Easy G (G²);61550940 said:
Good points. I think the way many glorify Reaganomics as being the system for all times is akin to the ways others glorify the methods used to keep carts/horses or the early railroad system running and how the system helped out for the time. Certain things work because of the setting one's in and the ways that culture was geared to make things possible---but if someone looked at bullet trains today in their development (or automobiles/cars) and said that we need to go back to the previous system, they'd be silly for doing so since electricity/gasoline are used today in ways to get things done that were not present in previous times.

As it is, Reaganomics never truly worked fully as much as people champion. It also had flaws and drawbacks that would be damaging for today..


Thanks, EasyG

The articles are truly instructive. The Mises Institute piece is good, this one has a nicely detailed description of the Fed's involvement: Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Reaganomics: An Analysis
P.C. Roberts (served under Reagan, mentioned in the article) is deeply critical of the present economic course of the Republican Party in general.

It is also apparently forgotten what a massive hit the S&L crisis was on the economy -- deregulation/lack of regulation has been at least a partial author of three financial crises in the US.
 
Upvote 0

RedPaddy

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2012
2,526
79
✟3,110.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How many of "the 47%" has Gov. Romney 'ministered to' ? I've known a fair number of "47%ers" - and Gov. Romney is factually wrong about many of "them".

My dad would never talk about helping others -- and many people don't. Because it is a way of life, not extraordinary and certainly not to be used as "advertising".

I have known many, many people who have helped others; even when it came at tremendous personal cost to themselves. People who did without the food they actually needed, so that others could eat.
Honestly can't give you a fair answer as to how many folks Mitt has personally ministered to. I know he oversaw a large part of his church and that his church values helping those in need but I have no numbers for you. If you come across those numbers I would be interested in seeing what you find.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Honestly can't give you a fair answer as to how many folks Mitt has personally ministered to. I know he oversaw a large part of his church and that his church values helping those in need but I have no numbers for you. If you come across those numbers I would be interested in seeing what you find.

It certainly wasn't 47% of the people in the taxpaying age range.

And his experience of all the people he ministered to in the taxpaying range who don't pay income tax and "feel entitled" is not at all what I have experienced.

Which means that even if he worked with people like that, he is factually incorrect about others who also fall in that income group.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟155,006.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Except for those of outstanding moral superiority who thereby deem themselves fit to judge what is really in Romney's heart, Romney has regretted and corrected himself on those words regarding the 47 %.

Just mey two cents.

Carry on discussing what is really in the man's heart.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Except for those of outstanding moral superiority who thereby deem themselves fit to judge what is really in Romney's heart, Romney has regretted and corrected himself on those words regarding the 47 %.

Just mey two cents.

Carry on discussing what is really in the man's heart.

Some people do still think what Romney said is accurate.
 
Upvote 0

eldermike

Pray
Site Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Try to not forget that those 47% don't pay income tax and all they want is free stuff. That was what Rmoney said. :wave:

By being an Obama supporter who pays income taxes and does not expect free stuff, I am proof that Rmoney is out of touch with the average American.

But also do not forget human nature, free stuff has the power of bondage. You can see the truth of it on your TV screen as other countries try and get a grip on the free stuff before they fall off the cliff or worse kill each other in the streets to keep a benifit.

An actual discussion of real issues would require us to examine the road we are on by looking at others who are farther down the same road. How is it working out for them? That would be a great question for a moderator of a debate. "how is your plan different than say Greece"? Good question, right?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Thanks, EasyG

The articles are truly instructive. The Mises Institute piece is good, this one has a nicely detailed description of the Fed's involvement: Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Reaganomics: An Analysis
P.C. Roberts (served under Reagan, mentioned in the article) is deeply critical of the present economic course of the Republican Party in general.

.
There's definately a need to be very critical of the ways that economics are pushed by many in the Republican party in the name of "saving the economy" even when many things that were pushed before helped to make the situation as we now have it. The Mises Institute was definately spot on.

There was another one as well that was VERY instructive, concerning wealth and power have shifted to the top over the 30 years since Reagan was inaugurated--more here at Who Rules America: C. Wright Mills, Floyd Hunter, and 50 Years of Power Structure Research and Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power.

As said before elsewhere, during the era of Regan, Reganomics involved the "trickle down" concept that NEVER worked. One of the biggest fairytales, IMHO, ever that people believed when thinking that corporations somehow became less powerful because there were areas where government reduced itself...and yet Reagan was one of the key moving forces, along with Maggie Thatcher, of giving the deregulation movement real headway...and Reagan also increased the use of “outsourcing” government and military operations to private companies.

As another noted best, creating an economy for predators is not respect for a "free market"..and many noting that Reganomics were really "Riganomics". Noam Chomsky did a good job in seeking to address the issue of Reganomics for what it was and the ways that people are idolizing an era as if it's golden when it really was not as great as people hyped it up to be...




 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
But also do not forget human nature, free stuff has the power of bondage. You can see the truth of it on your TV screen as other countries try and get a grip on the free stuff before they fall off the cliff or worse kill each other in the streets to keep a benifit.

An actual discussion of real issues would require us to examine the road we are on by looking at others who are farther down the same road. How is it working out for them? That would be a great question for a moderator of a debate. "how is your plan different than say Greece"? Good question, right?

On the matter of Greece, it would have been a ridiculous question; the situation in Greece is not comparable, and comes from completely different circumstances.

Even when given the opportunity, Ryan did not give details - for example on the tax plan. He cited 6 studies, as Romney has, but they are not actually real studies. One is an op-ed, several are blog posts - only one or two actually qualify as studies. (As both Romney and Ryan have academic degrees, they should know the difference between a study and a reference.)

Biden did interrupt; so did Romney. They seem to have a similar style in that regard.
 
Upvote 0

JCSr

Gunshine State
Sep 6, 2012
3,370
66
✟11,486.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
But also do not forget human nature, free stuff has the power of bondage. You can see the truth of it on your TV screen as other countries try and get a grip on the free stuff before they fall off the cliff or worse kill each other in the streets to keep a benifit.

An actual discussion of real issues would require us to examine the road we are on by looking at others who are farther down the same road. How is it working out for them? That would be a great question for a moderator of a debate. "how is your plan different than say Greece"? Good question, right?
Free stuff is inciting, however I believe you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was Rmoney who claimed that the 47% for Obama are the same people who want free stuff and pay no income tax. I pointed out that I am proof that Rmoney's comment was wrong as well as insulting to the millions like me who support Obama yet do not sponge off of others.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
P.C. Roberts (served under Reagan, mentioned in the article) is deeply critical of the present economic course of the Republican Party in general.

It is also apparently forgotten what a massive hit the S&L crisis was on the economy -- deregulation/lack of regulation has been at least a partial author of three financial crises in the US.
It's interesting studying history and remembering what others said on Reagan when he was alive.

One person whom I think you'd enjoy is Bruce Bartlett. He was one of the originators of Reaganomics, the supply-side economic theory that conservatives have clung to for decades. He had an excellent book on the issue entitled The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.


For a review on the work, one can go here to EconomistMom.com »How True Fiscal Conservatives Talk About Tax Policy. As she noted on the book:
The New York Times’ David Leonhardt wrote a really nice story about Bruce’s current perspective on supply-side economics and tax policy and how the Republican Party has lost its fiscally-conservative way (emphasis added):
[P]erhaps the most persistent — and thought-provoking — conservative critic of the party has been Bruce Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett has worked for Jack Kemp and Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He has been a fellow at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. He wants the estate tax to be reduced, and he thinks that President Obama should not have taken on health reform or climate change this year.
Above all, however, he thinks that the Republican Party no longer has a credible economic policy. It continues to advocate tax cuts even though the recent Bush tax cuts led to only mediocre economic growth and huge deficits…
On the spending side, Republican leaders criticize Mr. Obama, yet offer no serious spending cuts of their own…

How, Mr. Bartlett asks, is this conservative? How is it in keeping with a party that once prided itself on fiscal responsibility — the party of President Dwight Eisenhower (who refused to cut taxes because the budget wasn’t balanced) or of the first President Bush (whose tax increase helped create the 1990s surpluses)?
“So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,” Mr. Bartlett says. “It’s not conservative at all.”…
True fiscal conservatives should be advocating a more balanced budget, certainly after we’ve recovered from the aftermath of this recession. (Bill Clinton made this his final point in his prepared remarks to the World Business Forum in New York City on Wednesday.) True fiscal conservatives understand that while the benefit of low tax rates is improved economic incentives for private-sector work and saving, the cost of low tax rates is the reduced public saving that arises from a larger budget deficit (or smaller surplus). The benefits were more likely to outweigh costs back in the days when marginal tax rates were very high. But now it’s a totally different story:
[Bruce's] conservatism starts with the idea that high taxes are no longer the problem, even if complaining about them still makes for good politics. This year, federal taxes are on pace to equal just 15 percent of gross domestic product. It is the lowest share since 1950.
As the economy recovers, taxes will naturally return to about 18 percent of G.D.P., and Mr. Obama’s proposed rate increase on the affluent would take the level closer to 20 percent. But some basic arithmetic — the Medicare budget, projected to soar in coming decades — suggests taxes need to rise further, and history suggests that’s O.K.
For one thing, past tax increases have not choked off economic growth. The 1980s boom didn’t immediately follow the 1981 Reagan tax cut; it followed his 1982 tax increase to reduce the deficit. The 1990s boom followed the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Tax rates matter, but they’re nowhere near the main force affecting growth.
And taxes are supposed to rise as a country grows richer…
Bruce argues that while the first goal of modern conservatism should be to keep government from getting too big, the second:
…should be to keep taxes from being increased in the wrong ways. Supply-side economics is based on the idea that higher tax rates discourage work and investment, two crucial ingredients for economic growth. But higher taxes on consumption don’t have nearly the same effect as taxes on incomes or companies. If anything, consumption taxes encourage savings, which lifts investment.
So Mr. Bartlett advocates a value-added tax — a federal sales tax — which most other rich countries have…
Even worse though, is to cut taxes in the wrong ways–such that even as public saving is harmed via deficit financing, private incentives to save and invest and work are harmed as well. Or such that most of the tax cutting agenda consists of a prior Administration’s tax policy that a new Administration understands has been proven to not pass the cost-benefit test.

Bruce Bartlett is a true fiscal conservative who’s telling us taxes have to rise. Concord Coalition Executive Director Bob Bixby is another one.
Marshalling compelling history and economics, he explains in his book how economic theories that may be perfectly valid at one moment in time under one set of circumstances tend to lose validity over time because they are misapplied under different circumstances. Bartlett makes a compelling, historically-based case for large tax increases, once anathema to him and his economic allies. In The New American Economy, Bartlett seeks to clarify a compelling and way forward for the American economy.

And we definately need to find compelling ways of changing things, as the way that "Trickle Down" was advocated was like having a wolf at the front door appear to be like a puppy/pet dog ...and ignoring the fact that it was not meant to be your friend. The system really doesn't work and people need to stop lying as if it ever was meant to do so in all times/settings...



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T

Thekla

Guest
Easy G (G²);61551600 said:
It's interesting studying history and remembering what others said on Reagan when he was alive.

One person whom I think you'd enjoy is Bruce Bartlett. He was one of the originators of Reaganomics, the supply-side economic theory that conservatives have clung to for decades. He had an excellent book on the issue entitled The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.

bruce-bartlett-new-american-economy.jpg

For a review on the work, one can go here to EconomistMom.com »How True Fiscal Conservatives Talk About Tax Policy. As one reviewer noted on the book:

The New York Times’ David Leonhardt wrote a really nice story about Bruce’s current perspective on supply-side economics and tax policy and how the Republican Party has lost its fiscally-conservative way (emphasis added):
[P]erhaps the most persistent — and thought-provoking — conservative critic of the party has been Bruce Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett has worked for Jack Kemp and Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He has been a fellow at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. He wants the estate tax to be reduced, and he thinks that President Obama should not have taken on health reform or climate change this year.
Above all, however, he thinks that the Republican Party no longer has a credible economic policy. It continues to advocate tax cuts even though the recent Bush tax cuts led to only mediocre economic growth and huge deficits…
On the spending side, Republican leaders criticize Mr. Obama, yet offer no serious spending cuts of their own…

How, Mr. Bartlett asks, is this conservative? How is it in keeping with a party that once prided itself on fiscal responsibility — the party of President Dwight Eisenhower (who refused to cut taxes because the budget wasn’t balanced) or of the first President Bush (whose tax increase helped create the 1990s surpluses)?
“So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,” Mr. Bartlett says. “It’s not conservative at all.”…
True fiscal conservatives should be advocating a more balanced budget, certainly after we’ve recovered from the aftermath of this recession. (Bill Clinton made this his final point in his prepared remarks to the World Business Forum in New York City on Wednesday.) True fiscal conservatives understand that while the benefit of low tax rates is improved economic incentives for private-sector work and saving, the cost of low tax rates is the reduced public saving that arises from a larger budget deficit (or smaller surplus). The benefits were more likely to outweigh costs back in the days when marginal tax rates were very high. But now it’s a totally different story:
[Bruce's] conservatism starts with the idea that high taxes are no longer the problem, even if complaining about them still makes for good politics. This year, federal taxes are on pace to equal just 15 percent of gross domestic product. It is the lowest share since 1950.
As the economy recovers, taxes will naturally return to about 18 percent of G.D.P., and Mr. Obama’s proposed rate increase on the affluent would take the level closer to 20 percent. But some basic arithmetic — the Medicare budget, projected to soar in coming decades — suggests taxes need to rise further, and history suggests that’s O.K.
For one thing, past tax increases have not choked off economic growth. The 1980s boom didn’t immediately follow the 1981 Reagan tax cut; it followed his 1982 tax increase to reduce the deficit. The 1990s boom followed the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Tax rates matter, but they’re nowhere near the main force affecting growth.
And taxes are supposed to rise as a country grows richer…
Bruce argues that while the first goal of modern conservatism should be to keep government from getting too big, the second:
…should be to keep taxes from being increased in the wrong ways. Supply-side economics is based on the idea that higher tax rates discourage work and investment, two crucial ingredients for economic growth. But higher taxes on consumption don’t have nearly the same effect as taxes on incomes or companies. If anything, consumption taxes encourage savings, which lifts investment.
So Mr. Bartlett advocates a value-added tax — a federal sales tax — which most other rich countries have…
Even worse though, is to cut taxes in the wrong ways–such that even as public saving is harmed via deficit financing, private incentives to save and invest and work are harmed as well. Or such that most of the tax cutting agenda consists of a prior Administration’s tax policy that a new Administration understands has been proven to not pass the cost-benefit test.

Bruce Bartlett is a true fiscal conservative who’s telling us taxes have to rise. Concord Coalition Executive Director Bob Bixby is another one.
Marshalling compelling history and economics, he explains in his book how economic theories that may be perfectly valid at one moment in time under one set of circumstances tend to lose validity over time because they are misapplied under different circumstances. Bartlett makes a compelling, historically-based case for large tax increases, once anathema to him and his economic allies. In The New American Economy, Bartlett seeks to clarify a compelling and way forward for the American economy.

From your post:

“So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,” Mr. Bartlett says. “It’s not conservative at all.”…



This is exactly my impression !

It does look like a good book (as my stack of "to read" grows :D)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
From your post:

“So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,” Mr. Bartlett says. “It’s not conservative at all.”…



This is exactly my impression !
My impression as well, especially when other conservatives that are able to find common ground with the president are often ignored in the process of trying to say whatever against the president and not being willing to address it.
It does look like a good book (as my stack of "to read" grows :D
I definately think the book would be up your alley :) If not able to get offline, one can always read it online as well thankfully.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Even when given the opportunity, Ryan did not give details - for example on the tax plan. He cited 6 studies, as Romney has, but they are not actually real studies. One is an op-ed, several are blog posts - only one or two actually qualify as studies. (As both Romney and Ryan have academic degrees, they should know the difference between a study and a reference.)

Biden did interrupt; so did Romney. They seem to have a similar style in that regard.
Thought I was the only one thinking that the "studies" cited throughout the presidential elections by Team RR were not really studies as much as opinions for the most part. It seems to be the mindset of argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") where one concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

As it concerns Biden, I thought it was interesting since he was very passionate/on point in being stern...and he did give facts. For people saying "Well he was rude to interrupt!!!", I thought it was interesting to see how others felt a week ago that Romney was good for doing the same when it came to asserting/being fiery in debate. How it seems to switch when it is done by someone on the opposite side whom you disagree with--thus making something celebrated into a negative automatically (like someone making fun of others saying "I'm just keepin' it Real!" and then saying to another being satirical to them "They're being just obnoxious/mean to me!!!!"....).

We have way too much happening in the way of "Do as I say, Not as I do!" and seeing the best in ourselves/others we favor while seeing the worst in others we disagree with. That's not to say that everytime you have a disagreement with someone, the negative you see isn't really negative..as truth is truth/facts are facts....but there's something to be said on how there's a tendency to give more grace/credence to those we support even when they may do the same thing as another. If two people argue and one was yelling, it doesn't matter whether I like the person or not when it comes to noting that the person was really yelling.

If I call it out equally in the person I favor when they yell, it shows one is being reasonable/objective. However, if someone I favor yells when in discussion/argument and I say that only their opposition yells all the time (which would be false)----or I am somehow able to simply chill/listen and tolerate them when they do yell while the opposition I'm against is accused of screaming when they simply raised their voice one time (or spoke passionately), then it shows there's an inconsistency. This is what seems to be happening a lot in discussions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T

Thekla

Guest
Easy G (G²);61551811 said:
Thought I was the only one thinking that the "studies" cited throughout the presidential elections by Team RR were not really studies as much as opinions for the most part. It seems to be the mindset of argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") where one concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

As it concerns Biden, I thought it was interesting since he was very passionate/on point in being stern...and he did give facts. For people saying "Well he was rude to interrupt!!!", I thought it was interesting to see how others felt a week ago that Romney was good for doing the same when it came to asserting/being fiery in debate. How it seems to switch when it is done by someone on the opposite side whom you disagree with--thus making something celebrated into a negative automatically (like someone making fun of others saying "I'm just keepin' it Real!" and then saying to another being satirical to them "They're being just obnoxious/mean to me!!!!"....).

We have way too much happening in the way of "Do as I say, Not as I do!" and seeing the best in ourselves/others we favor while seeing the worst in others we disagree with. That's not to say that everytime you have a disagreement with someone, the negative you see isn't really negative..as truth is truth/facts are facts....but there's something to be said on how there's a tendency to give more grace/credence to those we support even when they may do the same thing as another. If two people argue and one was yelling, it doesn't matter whether I like the person or not when it comes to noting that the person was really yelling.

If I call it out equally in the person I favor when they yell, it shows one is being reasonable/objective. However, if someone I favor yells when in discussion/argument and I say that only their opposition yells all the time (which would be false)----or I am somehow able to simply chill/listen and tolerate them when they do yell while the opposition I'm against is accused of screaming when they simply raised their voice one time (or spoke passionately), then it shows there's an inconsistency. This is what seems to be happening a lot in discussions.

That's my impression, too. And among the children here watching the debate (10, 14, 17), interruption counts as interrupting.

Here's a bit on the six studies; I'd read about them before (an econ. blog iirc, which referred to more than one "study" as an op-ed), but this is the first hit that came up under the search (it's more recent):
1. Harvey Rosen paper. Rosen, a professor at Princeton, assumed Romney's lower tax rates would kickstart enough growth to pay for the revenue hole those lower tax rates would create. This seems dubious. Alan Viard and Alex Brill of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have argued that it seems unlikely revenue neutral tax reform would have big growth effects -- incentives don't change even if tax rates do. And besides, the Tax Policy Center used aggressive growth estimates from Romney adviser Greg Mankiw's work to test Romney's plan. It still didn't add up.

2. Marty Feldstein Wall Street Journal op-ed. Former Reagan adviser and current Harvard professor Feldstein argued Romney's plan works if you assume growth would be much stronger and if you define middle class as households making less than $100,000 rather than households making less than $200,000. This latter figure is the one Romney has used when he has said his plan would not raise taxes on the middle class.

3. Marty Feldstein blog post. Feldstein was less aggressive with his growth estimates this time, but he stuck with his definition of middle class as households making less than $100,000. He also assumed Romney might cut tax preferences for employer health-insurance, make municipal bond interest taxable, and eliminate the child tax credit for households making more than $100,000.

4. Matt Jensen blog post at AEI. He argued Romney might cut tax preferences for municipal bonds and life insurance buildups. But this might go against Romney's promise not to cut tax preferences for savings and investment -- and would only pay for half of Romney's revenue hole, according to the Tax Policy Center.

5. Curtis Dubay blog post at Heritage. He argued Romney might cut tax preferences for municipal bonds and life insurance buildups -- yes, again -- and that Romney might tax inheritances on a "carryover basis" after eliminating the estate tax. In plain English, heirs would have to pay capital gains for the price an asset was bought for, rather than the price it was inherited at. But as Suzy Khimm of the Washington Post notes, Dubay overestimates how much revenue this change -- which, remember, is just a guess about what Romney would do -- would generate.

6. Romney Tax Reform White Paper. This is just his advisers arguing by assertion that the plan works.

In other words, Romney's plan only works if you assume he has a different plan or use a magic growth asterisk. And that means we have no idea what he would do if he wins. Does he care more about his tax rate cuts, about not hiking taxes on the middle class, or not increasing the deficit? His adviser Kevin Hassett suggested they would back off the high-end tax rate cuts if it would increase the deficit, but Romney quickly denied that. He's also denied reality, by relying on studies that only prove his critics' point.
The 6 Studies Paul Ryan Cited Prove Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Is Impossible - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic
 
Upvote 0