Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you make 50k to 100k a yr your taxes will go up $4500 to pay for the tax breaks for the super rich if Romney becomes president another reason I will not vote for this clown. Check out this video
George Soros funded the study used in the OP's link....theEDshow/MSNBC/WaPost used it and the study was done through "DiscoverTheNetworks."
That doesn't mean it is guaranteed to be biased to the left, but if the Koch brothers funded a similar study that made DNC plans look bad, I am sure you would hear some liberals scream the study needs to be tossed out with the rubbish.
No, that is not his plan. His plan calls for cutting deductions, as well as cutting spending. It also relies on economic growth that the tax cuts and his other economic plans are intended to spur to increase the amount subject to taxes.
This is why we need to vote for someone outside of politics and their set in stone thinking.
I agree under normal circumstances tax cuts will spur spending. Things are not normal. Give people a few extra bucks and it's going to go to savings or paying off of old bills.
People will not go back to "normal" until the budget is not so out of wack. Neither Obama not Romney have the balls to do what is needed. The only way things get back to normal is increased revenue and across the board cuts.
This is why we need to vote for someone outside of politics and their set in stone thinking.
No one "outside of politics" would have any chance in hell of getting elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I agree under normal circumstances tax cuts will spur spending. Things are not normal. Give people a few extra bucks and it's going to go to savings or paying off of old bills.
People paying off old bills is a good thing. Lots of private debt is not a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
People will not go back to "normal" until the budget is not so out of wack. Neither Obama not Romney have the balls to do what is needed. The only way things get back to normal is increased revenue and across the board cuts.
That's not a good idea right now. Increased revenue coming because of economic growth would be a good thing, but you are implying increased revenue coming from tax hikes. That would not be a good thing. Across the board spending cuts are what we need to do in the longrun, but dramatic ones should not take place during an economic downturn.
We need as much certainty as possible, for both consumers and businesses. Obviously we can't do anything about the situation in Europe (or in Asia, where things are getting worse) other than strengthening our own economy - which would help theirs, but we can provide as much certainty in so far as domestic policy as possible (i.e. no short-term solutions, but longer-term solutions), we can reduce regulations, we can replace ObamaCare with something that actually makes sense, we can cut taxes, etc. Corporations are sitting on lots of cash. Remove some of the uncertainty and they will spend.
Perhaps the best solution on taxes and spending (for the short-term...for the long-term, we need significant tax reform) would be something like this:
1) Extend the Bush tax cuts and FICA tax cuts for 2 more years, plus enact the 20% cut that Romney's plan calls for without ending the deductions, with the provision that all the money that would be owed if the tax cuts were ended and if Romney's additional 20% cut was not implemented would be collected and then redistributed with the condition that it would be spent (in the US) or used to pay off debts. It would not be able to be saved. Put it on some kind of debit card that restricts the use of the money.
2) At the end of the 2-year period, go with what Romney's plan calls for. Go back to full FICA taxes, stop collecting the portion of the "non-taxed" money that I called for collecting above, end/limit whatever deductions he wants to end/limit, implement the corporate tax reform his plan calls for, and also implement the spending cuts OR at this point, go to a flat tax or another significantly different tax structure with spending cuts - with everything being announced well in advance to reduce uncertainty.
Yes, #1 would increase the deficit temporarily, but it would REALLY help the economy grow so increased revenue would counteract it to some extent and it would not be quite as big of a problem if there was a clear plan to reverse it - and start decreasing the deficit further - after 2 years.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 07-10-2012 at 02:18 PM..
Anyway, I don't need to see it to know that what they're saying is wrong (assuming that was even said...not that OP is exactly trustworthy or even usually understands what he/she is talking about). Romney's plan includes extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting the tax rates further by 20% for every tax bracket. He does plan to cut deductions and he hasn't been very detailed about which deductions he's going to cut. I guess they're probably suggesting he'd cut all deductions for the middle class and none for the wealthy or something like that (I'm certainly not sure....like I said, I'm not going to watch 14 minutes of propaganda...I don't even have time right now, perhaps I'll watch it tonight), but he's actually said that he thinks more deductions should be cut for the wealthy than the middle class.
You are excatly right, the deductions he is cutting are not going to affect middle income earners. This is more of the left's BS and propoganda.
Some of the poor could have to pay more taxes under Romney's plan, but people in the middle class/upper middle class/lower upper class would benefit - not just the super rich. A lot of the poor and even lower end of middle class don't pay income taxes anyway (47% don't pay). Sure, some of these 47% might possibly have to pay something. Well...that seems fair, right?
Why isn't Romney willing to be honest and campaign on this concept of raising taxes on the poor and low income so that he and his rich buddies can add a few more millions to their net worths each year?
Yup.
Somebody is going to have to pay more taxes pretty soon, and it's as sure as a duck's butt is watertight that Romney isn't going to ding his pals.
They're the only people he has ever known. When it comes to doing favors for the ultra-wealthy, Romney makes Bush look like a second-rate piker.
After all, Bush became wealthy doing stuff like sucking oil out of the ground.
All of Romney's money came from making other rich guys even more money than they already had.
Don't be a blind partisan hack, if you will dismiss everything from FoxNews then you can not accept anything from MSNBC. MSNBC is more biased than FoxNews, as MSNBC is slightly less likely to invite a coherent opposing viewpoint on.
Both are biased.
Especially after what Sununu did to Andrea Mitchell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
