|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
09-24-2012, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln 
|
|
#2
09-24-2012, 04:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.” You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Evan Vucci/AP Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich. But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment. The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts. For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists. Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”: The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy. The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’” And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class. And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income? MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein. So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite. Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.
__________________
GOP- Protecting Pedophiles since 2025
|
|
#3
09-24-2012, 04:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is little to no polling that shows Romney strong with anything that translates into winning the swing states he has to, thus into electoral college votes and a win.
Today's polling summaries: New Swing State Polls In CO, FL, IA, MI, NC, Nev, and WI Show Excellent Results for President September 24, 2012 Latest Swing State Polls Here are the today's swing state polls, updated as needed throughout the day: Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling) Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group) Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group) Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen) North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas) Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group) Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...-for-President
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
09-24-2012, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he thinks it is "fair" that he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income of $20 million last year than someone who made $50,000 annually.
"Yeah," Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday on the CBS television show "60 Minutes," when he was asked if he thought his relatively low rate was fair.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#5
09-24-2012, 04:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You don't have to be exceptionally brilliant to buy up companies, leverage the hell out of them, bleed all the cash out of them making you rich, then leaving them in debt and to pick up the pieces you left behind. That's more of an ethical decision than an "intelligent financial" one. Mitt's job in private equity was never to create jobs, or make companies strong - it was to leverage and make himself and his investors profit. The government is not a "bleed it dry and milk profit out of it" concern. So why Romney thinks his business experience is a qualification is beyond me. Unless you are the Republican party, and your goal is, indeed, Paul Ryan's, to take all the money you can via defense contracting, medicare, etc. Now they want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Anyone who thinks privatizing - which requires a profit to be made for the person that runs the program - is better than non-profit for our own programs is crazy. Medicare proves that - it delivers better health care, at far less cost, than private insurance.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#6
09-24-2012, 05:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Things I dont care about in a Presidential election: Views onAbortion Views on Gay rights How much said person makes/worth How much said person pays in taxes What church said person attends/says they attend/ etc. Color of skin Im sure there are others but these seem to dominate the news and I hardly think they matter to qualify a person to run the country. IMO Obama has been a pretty poor president with virtually nothing to run on yet Romney is such a weak candidate it is embarassing that he cant even put up much of a fight.
|
|
#7
09-24-2012, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
but i do think if someone thinks it's common sense to be able to roll down airplane windows, they probably aren't qualified to be president.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#8
09-24-2012, 06:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is pitiful that Obama is running a campaign focused on why his opponent can't do the job and probably even more pitiful that Romney can't take advantage of the fact that Obama has an almost four year track record which proves he can't do the job and Romney isn't using it properly.
|
|
#9
09-24-2012, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
if he was a worthwhile candidate, romney would be ahead in the polls, all things considered. the fact that obama is opening a gap in the polls tells you just how rotten a nominee romney is. as each day goes by, mitt finds new ways to show just how unfit he is for the job. he's been doing so pretty much since his trip overseas to show how 'savvy' he was. yeah, that went well.  and it's been downhill since.has obama done a good job? no, i don't think he has. but i haven't seen anything from mitt that would suggest an improvement. and for some on here, peewee herman could run against obama, and they'd vote for peewee. what has mitt said he will do that makes him a better alternative?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#10
09-24-2012, 06:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
BTW Tell that 'someone' who made $50K last year to save as much as possible as he will be able to pay a lower rate on investment income than he does on straight income.
|
|
#11
09-24-2012, 06:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
GOP- Protecting Pedophiles since 2025
|
|
#12
09-24-2012, 07:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Of course this is the hidden plan Obama has publically stated before. Re-distribution of wealth and not just in the U.S. but worldwide.
|
Hybrid Mode
