Quantcast

Obama Says Romney Wants to Raise Taxes on Middle-Class to Give Wealthy a Break: Does He?

Chris D 2012/08/01 20:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The spin keeps on spinning. Now, it's Obama saying Romney will raise taxes on the middle class to keep the tax breaks going for the super wealthy. Sounds fishy to me. Is Obama right, or is it true that Mitt Romney is planning to raise taxes on the middle class?

ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
AKRON, Ohio – President Obama today pounced on a new report that found Mitt Romney’s economic plan would raise taxes on the majority of Americans and give tax breaks to the super wealthy, telling supporters in the battleground state of Ohio that his opponent wants them to pay more so that “people like him” can get a tax cut.
obama romney

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/obama...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Daryl 2012/08/01 21:23:17
    Yes, Romney wants to raise taxes on middle class!
    Daryl
    +25
    Yes.

    Romney knows that by pandering to the ultra-ultra-ultra-wealthy he will win the election.

    They make up the majority of voters in swing states like Ohio, Indiana and New Mexico.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Dogman Blank B... 2012/08/04 22:20:30
    Dogman
    +1
    Who are you referring to?
  • Blank B... Dogman 2012/08/05 00:28:47
  • Dogman Blank B... 2012/08/05 07:38:41
    Dogman
    +2
    I don't want to pay anyone's taxes but my own. That said, I don't mind paying my fair share, nor do I resent some of those dollars being used to help those in need.
  • Blank B... Dogman 2012/08/05 12:10:15
  • Dogman Blank B... 2012/08/05 12:44:05
    Dogman
    +2
    I don't want to be a Neo Con. Big money will not be willing to create jobs until Americans are willing to accept wages as low as the Chinese. It will take several generations before the Chinese demand fair wages for their work. In the mean time, we need to tax the one percent at a higher rate.
  • Blank B... Dogman 2012/08/05 13:45:14
  • Dogman Blank B... 2012/08/05 15:07:07
  • Blank B... Dogman 2012/08/05 15:28:34
  • Dogman Blank B... 2012/08/05 16:05:32
    Dogman
    +1
    I understand.
  • Jkirk3279 Apache 2012/08/03 19:04:51
    Jkirk3279
    +2
    Of course it's fair for the wealthiest Americans to pay a higher percentage of taxes.

    The Father of Economics, Adam Smith, said so explicitly.

    The first Income Tax in America was passed by Republican Abraham Lincoln, and it didn't affect lower-income people at all. They kept it on the books until the War Debt was paid for and discontinued it.

    Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act, instead of blaming outsourcing.

    That is some quality weed you're smoking.
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/03 22:35:35
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/03 23:08:17
    Dogman
    +1
    Romney's plan is to give further tax breaks to the one percent, and raise taxes on the middle class. Do you think this will help?
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 00:30:41
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    Please show me this in his words. I think you're full of fertilizer.
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/04 00:37:44
    Dogman
    +1
    Fair enough:

    "To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.

    The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 13:41:39 (edited)
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    Ridiculous, Ezra Klein has been nothing but a cheerleader for Obamacare.

    Help me understand how a 20% across the board decrease equates to a tax increase on the middle class. That in itself defies logic.

    That economic modeling group admits to having to make quite a few assumptions. There is so much room for error when you start doing that. Take a look at what Scientific American has to say about these so called simulations:

    http://www.scientificamerican...

    The true bottom line is this. Spending HAS to decrease, programs have to be cut, corruption, waste and duplication needs to be eliminated and we Americans need to take a good, long look at what our government should provide and what it shouldn't. Radical spending cuts are necessary and there is going to be endless whining, pissing and moaning about this pet program and that 'essential service' that is being proposed to cut, but it will be best in the end as we relearn being responsible for ourselves rather than government reliance. That is, if we can ever get to the point of doing this instead of simply watching the asses on Capitol Hill put on another show.

    Obama doesn't have it in his molecular and character make up. He's a marxist to the core. Romney? Well, he's not a marxist, but he's not the ideal choi...
    Ridiculous, Ezra Klein has been nothing but a cheerleader for Obamacare.

    Help me understand how a 20% across the board decrease equates to a tax increase on the middle class. That in itself defies logic.

    That economic modeling group admits to having to make quite a few assumptions. There is so much room for error when you start doing that. Take a look at what Scientific American has to say about these so called simulations:

    http://www.scientificamerican...

    The true bottom line is this. Spending HAS to decrease, programs have to be cut, corruption, waste and duplication needs to be eliminated and we Americans need to take a good, long look at what our government should provide and what it shouldn't. Radical spending cuts are necessary and there is going to be endless whining, pissing and moaning about this pet program and that 'essential service' that is being proposed to cut, but it will be best in the end as we relearn being responsible for ourselves rather than government reliance. That is, if we can ever get to the point of doing this instead of simply watching the asses on Capitol Hill put on another show.

    Obama doesn't have it in his molecular and character make up. He's a marxist to the core. Romney? Well, he's not a marxist, but he's not the ideal choice by any means. Would he do even half of what needs to be done to get America back on the right track? Hopefully, if we're lucky. Gary Johnson would do far more good, but the establishment control center has pretty much squashed any media coverage of both Johnson and Ron Paul. We have been 'given' Romney this time around with the guise and illusion that the people selected him. Poppy cock! But it's better than Obama.
    (more)
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/04 14:24:47
    Dogman
    The assumptions that were made were all in Romney's favor, giving his argument every possible advantage - and it still can't work.
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 14:35:26
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    That's what Klein's article states, but in practice these models are truly nothing more than assumptions. From the Scientific American article:

    That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott--he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions. "When you have to keep recalibrating a model, something is wrong with it," he says. "If you had to readjust the constant in Newton's law of gravity every time you got out of bed in the morning in order for it to agree with your scale, it wouldn't be much of a law But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work."


    .
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/04 14:42:34
    Dogman
    +1
    So, you believe that the "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center is deliberately designing models to make Romney look bad?
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 15:02:51
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    What?? You completely missed the point of the Scientific American article altogether, didn't you?
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/04 15:07:12
    Dogman
    +1
    I don't think so. Please, enlighten me.
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 15:16:52
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    Yes, indeed you missed it. Please take the time to read the link.
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/04 15:18:59
    Dogman
    I have. What is the point that I missed?
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 15:23:28
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    No. The point is, the Tax Policy Center, whether they have an agenda or not, is basing their conclusions on the reliance of flawed computer modeling programs. The very same type that failed in the risk analyses prior to the financial crash.
  • Dogman Purple ... 2012/08/04 15:52:11
    Dogman
    So, do you suggest that we stop analyzing plans before we put them into practice?
  • Purple ... Dogman 2012/08/04 18:20:17
    Purple Pinto ~PWCM~JLA
    I suggest we admit to the limitations and faults of our creations, our analyses, tests, etc., before we make the mistake of relying on them.

    These economic modeling programs are based on a significantly complex set of 'if/then' formulas. What if the if/then supposition is inaccurate? Obviously it depends on the individual assumption and what it affects, but one wrong assumption can throw off the entire result.

    .
  • debra.f... Purple ... 2012/08/16 23:14:17
    debra.faber
    And it wasn't Ezra Klein who made the original statement - it was the Tax Policy Center.
  • sunniday Dogman 2012/08/04 04:17:22
    sunniday
    Where do you get your information? Romney has said nothing about raising taxes on middle class,he has out lined taxsation on the 1%,but if we are to get this country back on track,theres no fairy godmother to wave a wandits going to be tough on all.
  • Dogman sunniday 2012/08/04 12:06:51
    Dogman
    From Bloomberg.com

    "To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.

    The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
  • scurvison Dogman 2012/08/04 20:28:32
  • Dogman scurvison 2012/08/04 21:26:15
    Dogman
    +1
    You will need health insurance, everyone does. And, when you do, you will become a burden to the rest of us who will have to pay your medical bills. Just because you're healthy doesn't mean you can't become sick.

    If you are uninsured, you are irresponsible and a drain on the nation's economy.
  • scurvison Dogman 2012/08/05 07:24:04
  • Dogman scurvison 2012/08/05 07:42:57
    Dogman
    +1
    Right, so if you hurt your back or need an appendectomy or come down with pneumonia or are diagnosed with cancer, you'll handle it with pain meds? That's your plan?
  • scurvison Dogman 2012/08/05 18:26:01
  • Dogman scurvison 2012/08/05 18:43:10
    Dogman
    +1
    Medical issues don't have to be terminal to become expensive. If you hurt your back and have to undergo several surgeries, your medical bills will become astronomical very quickly.

    I agree that insurance companies are scum bags - you have no argument from me there. I'd prefer a total government single payer system, with no insurance companies. Insurance companies exist to increase the wealth of their shareholders. They do that by lowering costs and increasing premiums. I don't think we need to add profit to the cost of health care.

    In answer to your question, I have not donated money to a hospital - that would be silly. I have paid my insurance premiums every month for the last thirty plus years for me and every member of my family. Fortunately, we haven't had to use the insurance for anything more than a sick visit or a tooth filling. But, should I, or anyone else in my family, become seriously sick, I will not pass any of that cost to you. You're welcome.
  • scurvison Dogman 2012/08/05 20:22:56
  • Dogman scurvison 2012/08/05 23:28:31
    Dogman
    +1
    The money that the hospital charges is increased to cover the costs of those who don't have insurance.
  • debra.f... scurvison 2012/08/16 23:19:59
    debra.faber
    But the day you are diagnosed with a disease, or get into an accident, it's on my dime. Because you will have a medical bill of astronomical proportion which you won't be able to pay, and the health providers will raise their rates because of you and others who refuse to buy health insurance until they are sick. Once the health providers raise their rates, then my insurance company will raise its rates. This isn't going to happen in the future - it's happening now. With all those young healthy folks who thought it would never happen to them. But, even when it was difficult for me, I provided medical insurance for myself and my children - so I should be paying for all those folks who didn't? I don't think so.
  • scurvison debra.f... 2012/08/17 00:47:55
  • scurvison debra.f... 2012/08/17 01:05:40
  • Bill Dogman 2012/08/04 13:53:32 (edited)
    Bill
    +3
    I guess you only watch the MSM and MSNBC. There are many things that drag businesses down - the biggest is the government. The regulatory burden on businesses is $1.75T a year. Uncertainty about tax structure (Bush Tax Cuts expiring in 2013, maybe), the additional burden of ObamaCare (including its regulations), businesses having to contribute more to Social Security and Workers Comp and Unemployment Insurance.
    Under Bush, unemployment averaged about 5% (until 2007, when the Dems took the House and Senate) and about a 3.5 to 4.5% GDP growth rate. Bush's
    highest deficit spending in any one year was about $413B. They say Obummer created more jobs than Bush. Well, I would hope so in an economy that has an 8.3% unemployment rate. Bush didn't HAVE TO create that many NEW jobs since the unemployment rate was 4.3 to 6%. He still did create jobs, however.
    Go ahead. Tax and regulate businesses to death the way Obummer wants to. You're only 52. Can't retire yet. You'll be unemployed for years and wonder why businesses left the country or are not hiring. Joke's on you. Careful what you wish for.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/21 13:48:27

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals