Rom­ney has been as unspe­cific as Obama has on what loop­holes and deduc­tions he plans to close.

This matters because it doesn’t seem that anyone else has figured out how to do it. That makes it a very important omission.

Sec­ondly, part of Romney’s tax cut plan relies on increas­ing tax rev­enues due to a boost in eco­nomic growth.

Yeah, about that…it doesn’t work. Oh, revenues may rise as the economy grows, but the fundamental government expenditures will necessarily rise faster. This is the biggest fundamental logical fallacy of the “cut taxes to increase revenues” mantra of Reaganomics.

His­tory tells us that there is not a direct cor­re­la­tion between tax rates and revenue.

That’s not what it tells us. Your statement misstates the data.

Nobody with any economic credibility believes that tax revenues will actually be increased by “boosting economic growth” with a tax cut favoring the rich.  If you wish to believe such drivel, that’s your choice, but please don’t expect it to sway any argument here.

First, as I said ear­lier, I don’t know.  Rom­ney has been as unspe­cific as Obama has on what loop­holes and deduc­tions he plans to close.  Yet accord­ing to the far left, that makes Rom­ney, but not Obama. This type of dou­ble stan­dard is a com­mon left­wing tactic. 

Sec­ondly, part of Romney’s tax cut plan relies on increas­ing tax rev­enues due to a boost in eco­nomic growth.  He does not claim the $5 tril­lion will be made up entirely by clos­ing loop­holes and deduc­tions alone. 

His­tory tells us that there is not a direct cor­re­la­tion between tax rates and revenue.

Ah yes, the old “I know what I campaigned on.…but I had no idea how bad things really were”. Seem if you’re ignorant of the true financial situation during a campaign.….you shouldn’t be making crazy promises.

Of course not. No one in the 2008 cam­paign pre­tended they had a
com­plete “plan” the way Rom­ney is pre­tend­ing he has a “plan.”

Sure. Obama just had the “good half” of the plan.….free healthcare. The “bad half” of new taxes and Medicare cuts would have to wait till after the election.

He noted that Bush went back on Bush’s promise. Clin­ton made no such promise.

He campaigned on lowering taxes…and he raised them…similar to Bush. I call that a massive broken promise and lying during the campaign.

As you note, Clinton said he would cut taxes. He did. The deficit increased. I don’t think Clinton he would never promised never to raise taxes. But he did promise to balance the budget. He did that, too.

Reagan promised to balance the budget. He promised that cutting taxes would generate enough increased growth and revenue that we would grow our way out of the deficits. We didn’t. It took Clinton’s “pay as you go” strategy (which was rammed though Congress over Republican objections) to balance the budget.

Bush 2 promised that his tax cuts would lead to increased growth, increased jobs, and would maintain the Clinton balanced budget. they didn’t. They led to stagnant job growth, horrendous deficits, and the worst economic crash in 80 years, a pile of elephant dung so deep we’re only now finally climbing out of it.

The Reagan-Bush trickle-down nonsense doesn’t work. Romney is making the same promises. We need to stop buying their elephant dung.

The pay-​​​​fors for the ACA were pre­cisely spelled out.

Dur­ing the 2008 campaign?

Of course not. No one in the 2008 campaign pretended they had a complete “plan” the way Romney is pretending he has a “plan.” The 2008 campaign was about contrasting approaches. Romney is pretending there is a way to cut $5 trillion in taxes without reducing revenue, merely by doing away with “deductions and loopholes” — which, he claims, will allow everyone to pay the same amount after the plan as before (then what’s the excuse for implementing the “plan”?)

He promised to cut taxes dur­ing the ’92 campaign…and even cam­paigned on Bush lying about “read my lips”.

He noted that Bush went back on Bush’s promise. Clinton made no such promise. You’re free to provide an in-context quote from Clinton promising never to raise taxes.

None of which has anything to do with Romney intentionally lying about his tax “plan”, and then lying more when called out on it. Romney’s “plan” mathematically cannot be “revenue neutral”. Romney’s “plan” is going to lower the taxes paid by the wealthiest in America, despite his lies to the contrary. Romney’s “plan” would markedly increase taxes paid by the middle class — or would add trillions to the federal deficit — despite his lies to the contrary. None of your deflections alter those facts. Romney’s lies don’t alter those facts.

Yes, he did. Valid point. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
And then what happened with the economy and jobs??

Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, saw the deficits go up, increased taxes and eventually oversaw a tripling of the national Debt. Bush promised NOT to raise taxes, saw the debt increasing, waited too late to raise taxes, and oversaw another 1.5x increase in the national debt. (From 1980 to 1992 the Debt went from <$1T to over $5.5T)

Clinton promised to cut taxes, saw what the deficit projections were, almost immediately raised taxes, and oversaw a marginal increase in the national debt AND the first surpluses in 30 years!

Bush II cut taxes, increased spending (sound familiar?) and oversaw a doubling of the national debt.

Glad you reminded us!

During the 2008 campaign?

Bill Clin­ton pass­ing tax increases (as Rea­gan did 11 times) … noth­ing dis­hon­est there.

He promised to cut taxes during the ’92 campaign…and even campaigned on Bush lying about “read my lips”.

Nice attempt at deflection. Changing the subject doesn’t deny the Romney lie. However, you did add to the Romney lie with further lies.

The same way peo­ple addressed Obama when he said he had a health­care plan.…but never men­tioned the $500B in tax increases and Medicare cuts needed to pay for it. And his stim­u­lus plan that flat wasn’t paid for. And then we have the tax increase Bill Clin­ton pushed thru.…after run­ning on tax cuts.

The pay-fors for the ACA were precisely spelled out. Your innuendo that they weren’t is a lie. (And your implication of “tax increases” and “Medicare cuts” is dishonest. I double-dare you to list them.)

The stimulus plan (I assume you meant ARRA) was indeed borrowed money. Most of it has been paid back. And it was made clear at the time that it was borrowed money, so your implication otherwise is a lie.

Bill Clinton passing tax increases (as Reagan did 11 times) … nothing dishonest there. He said he would balance the budget, He did. It required tax increases. He never said it wouldn’t, and anyone with an ounce of brain matter knows that revenue increases are needed to balance the federal budget.

Now, back to the topic. Romney is lying when he claims we can have $5 trillion in tax reductions, and balance them with elimination of “deductions and loopholes”, without raising anyone’s taxes, and without reducing federal revenue. He’s lying and he knows it.