Mitt Romney's Policies

[PromoTheRobot]

Your own original link had an 'expert' who said it could work.

 

Is this what you are referring to??

 

Researchers including Martin Feldstein of Harvard and Harvey S. Rosen of Princeton have argued that Mr. Romney’s tax math might work if he raised taxes on families making more than $100,000 a year — not $200,000 to $250,000 a year, as he currently promises — or if his plan gave a strong jolt to economic growth.

 

That's a real glowing endorsement there. He's basically saying it might work if he raises taxes on people making $100K +, which Romney said he won't do...or if there is a big enough "jolt" to the economy, though he doesn't say how big. Two guys saying "maybe" against many others saying "no way". Again, find a link to a credible non-partisan study of Romney's tax plan that says it will work.

 

PTR

Edited October 26, 2012 by PromoTheRobot

[jjamie12]

Then again, neither Romney nor Ryan have actually revealed any details from their plan so who can really tell?

 

PTR

 

As for 'details': How much more detailed can the Governor be?

 

1- He has said that he wants to lower marginal tax RATES by 20% across the board.

2- He has said that the 'wealthy' won't pay any less a share of the income tax as they do now.

3- He has said that he wants to close tax 'loopholes' to 'pay' for that 20% across the board cut.

 

Rightly, he has said that there are any number of ways to close the loopholes (from capping deductions at a certain, different, levels, to eliminating any number of deductions) and that there would be bi-partisan negotiation about how the legislation would be crafted in order to make it work.

He very clearly said that he would veto any legislation that came across his desk that didn't adhere to the three principles above.

 

That is a more detailed plan than anyone running in this race has given, so I'm not sure what else you're asking for? Or maybe you don't *really* care, you're just searching for reasons to vote for the President... Which is fine -- you don't have to be silly about it, though.

 

Is this what you are referring to??

 

 

 

That's a real glowing endorsement there. He's basically saying it might work if he raises taxes on people making $100K +, which Romney said he won't do...or if there is a big enough "jolt" to the economy, though he doesn't say how big. Two guys saying "maybe" against many others saying "no way". Again, find a link to a credible non-partisan study of Romney's tax plan that says it will work.

 

PTR

 

Keep reading your own link, PTR... you know, like ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just the headlines that you want to post.

 

Edit: I'll do it for you. "Scott A. Hodge, President of The Tax Foundation, a non-profit research group in Washington... believes that it was possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue neutral tax reform that cuts rates in the way that Mr. Romney described."

Edited October 26, 2012 by jjamie12

[3rdnlng]

Cheaper energy is what is needed to jump start the economy.

 

That's part of point #1 of Romney's 5 point plan.

[Cugalabanza]

_{All the obfuscation about tax policy and the inevitable revelations that the math of campain promises "doesn't add up" reminds me of a great Steve Martin bit, circa 1979. "How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes"}

 

 

_{You say.. “Steve... how can I be a millionaire... and never pay taxes?”}

_{First...get a million dollars.}

_{Now... you say, “Steve... what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You... have never paid taxes’?”}

_{Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: “I forgot!”}

[OCinBuffalo]

Is this what you are referring to??

 

 

 

That's a real glowing endorsement there. He's basically saying it might work if he raises taxes on people making $100K +, which Romney said he won't do...or if there is a big enough "jolt" to the economy, though he doesn't say how big. Two guys saying "maybe" against many others saying "no way". Again, find a link to a credible non-partisan study of Romney's tax plan that says it will work.

 

PTR

This entire analysis is based on a false premise...both ways, and is ridiculous.

 

We cannot KNOW which loopholes will be closed, or to what degree they will be closed, or, if there is some sort of max deduction cap, applied to a series of loopholes...that allows people to close their own loopholes however they want.

 

Until we KNOW which loopholes will be closed, and how, anybody who says they KNOW the Romney plan won't work is full of schit. Also, anybody who says they KNOW the Romney plan will work, is = full of schit.

 

And finally, as with all things government, we may THINK we KNOW how a particular change to a loophole will act, and may find out that we DON'T KNOW.

 

This is why we'd have to be very precise in how the loophole gets closed. And that....is why it's probably better to just go with removing the easy loopholes, and, for the rest, using a deduction cap, and let each taxpayer decide for themselves how they want to apply it.

[Philly McButterpants]

"On to his plan going forward:

- Focusing again on education. He is proposing recruiting 100,000 new teachers for math and science. And a renewed focus of training workers at community colleges. Education is the most important aspect to the future direction of the coutnry. The age of low-skilled, high paying jobs is over."

 

Our education system is broken at best, and a money pit anachronism at worst. Romney's plan puts power into the hands of the consumer (i.e., parents) by allowing parents access to the dollars used for their childer's education, and allow parents to CHOOSE where to have their children schooled. It's called capitalism. Those schools that put out a good product (educated students) will thrive. Schools that underperform will be forced to adapt or close . . . Competition is good for the consumer.

 

Obama's plan is a) classic democrat - throw money at a problem with little rhyme or reason; and b) designed to get more money into the hands of democrat friendly union voters.

 

How about real education reform rather than platitudes about hiring more teachers.

[Doc]

_{All the obfuscation about tax policy and the inevitable revelations that the math of campain promises "doesn't add up" reminds me of a great Steve Martin bit, circa 1979. "How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes"}

 

 

_{You say.. “Steve... how can I be a millionaire... and never pay taxes?”}

 

_{First...get a million dollars.}

 

_{Now... you say, “Steve... what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You... have never paid taxes’?”}

_{Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: “I forgot!”}

Geithner already tried that.

[fjl2nd]

The idea that just Mitt Romney being elected will help the economy is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in history. And Romney had the balls to tell that to people as if he some sort of...should I say...messiah??

 

There is this idea that cutting taxes on the top 5% will somehow create strong economic or employment growth. Truth is there is NO EVIDENCE for that idea.

 

Extending the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners, as Mr. Romney proposes, adds another trillion in lost revenue and increases the share of the benefits going to the top 5 percent. Even if the cost of the Romney tax cuts for the top 5 percent is covered by base-broadening measures, as Mr. Romney promises – but as President Obama and many others assert is mathematically impossible – does it make sense to devote trillions of dollars to lowering income taxes for the top 5 percent? Is this an effective way to create jobs?

Mr. Romney appears to think so. His plan rests on the assertion that lower taxes for high-income taxpayers will increase economic activity and employment – that lower taxes for job creators create jobs and will do so quickly. This assertion, while superficially convincing and ideologically compelling, is not supported by the evidence.

 

If tax cuts for high-income earners generate substantial real economic activity and job creation, then we should expect to see two things in the data. First, employment growth should be stronger in the years after tax cuts for these earners. Second, parts of the country with a larger share of high-income earners should experience stronger employment growth after national tax cuts for these taxpayers, because the places where they live receive a larger share of the national tax cuts.

What do we actually see after combing through a half-century of economic data? Neither of these predictions is borne out.

 

Another article of the effectiveness of tax reform with historical evidence: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/romneys-tax-plan-and-economic-growth/#more-156823

 

Cutting taxes on the middle class is okay but then to add to it with cuts for the rich/wealthy is only not necessary, it hurts our deficit problem. And Mitt promised a balanced budget within 6 years?? LOLOLOLL

 

"On to his plan going forward:

- Focusing again on education. He is proposing recruiting 100,000 new teachers for math and science. And a renewed focus of training workers at community colleges. Education is the most important aspect to the future direction of the coutnry. The age of low-skilled, high paying jobs is over."

 

Our education system is broken at best, and a money pit anachronism at worst. Romney's plan puts power into the hands of the consumer (i.e., parents) by allowing parents access to the dollars used for their childer's education, and allow parents to CHOOSE where to have their children schooled. It's called capitalism. Those schools that put out a good product (educated students) will thrive. Schools that underperform will be forced to adapt or close . . . Competition is good for the consumer.

 

Obama's plan is a) classic democrat - throw money at a problem with little rhyme or reason; and b) designed to get more money into the hands of democrat friendly union voters.

 

How about real education reform rather than platitudes about hiring more teachers.

 

Schooling is not the same as a television set, or a regular good. It is the basic tools necessary for children to succeed. If you want to treat it that way, then only the kids with the most money get to the best schools. Poverty is a huge issue when it comes to children's success already because they don't get the same great education as other kids.

 

I don't Obama's plan is to just throw money at the problem. Race to the Top is a start and hiring 100,000 new teachers is good for economic growth, adding jobs to the economy, and hopefully bettering education all together. Remember that many teachers have been losing jobs as the rest of the economy was adding them. Let's just get back to the old level. Unemployment will drop and we can work even more on getting the economy jump started more from new demand.

 

At the same time, hopefully states and unions can come together to get teacher contracts under control a little bit. It's not a problem everywhere however. In some places in the south, anybody can teach! That should probably change too. But most of you probably think education should be a state thing only. But, I believe there are plenty of benefits of setting the same standards across the countries for not only students, but teachers too. We need to recruit teachers who really care about their profession and are dedicated to teaching.

[Doc]

The idea that just Mitt Romney being elected will help the economy is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in history. And Romney had the balls to tell that to people as if he some sort of...should I say...messiah??

 

There is this idea that cutting taxes on the top 5% will somehow create strong economic or employment growth. Truth is there is NO EVIDENCE for that idea.

 

 

 

Another article of the effectiveness of tax reform with historical evidence: http://economix.blog...th/#more-156823

 

Cutting taxes on the middle class is okay but then to add to it with cuts for the rich/wealthy is only not necessary, it hurts our deficit problem. And Mitt promised a balanced budget within 6 years?? LOLOLOLL

Actually the dumbest thing I've ever heard is that Barry prevented the US from going into another Great Depression . The fact is we should be seeing massive rebound from such a deep recession, but aren't and that's because Barry's policies have been a failure. And raising an additional $80B/year by taxing the top-2% will do nothing to help or hurt the deficit.

[jjamie12]

The idea that just Mitt Romney being elected will help the economy is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in history. And Romney had the balls to tell that to people as if he some sort of...should I say...messiah??

 

There is this idea that cutting taxes on the top 5% will somehow create strong economic or employment growth. Truth is there is NO EVIDENCE for that idea.

 

 

 

Another article of the effectiveness of tax reform with historical evidence: http://economix.blog...th/#more-156823

 

Cutting taxes on the middle class is okay but then to add to it with cuts for the rich/wealthy is only not necessary, it hurts our deficit problem. And Mitt promised a balanced budget within 6 years?? LOLOLOLL

 

 

 

Schooling is not the same as a television set, or a regular good. It is the basic tools necessary for children to succeed. If you want to treat it that way, then only the kids with the most money get to the best schools. Poverty is a huge issue when it comes to children's success already because they don't get the same great education as other kids.

 

I don't Obama's plan is to just throw money at the problem. Race to the Top is a start and hiring 100,000 new teachers is good for economic growth, adding jobs to the economy, and hopefully bettering education all together. Remember that many teachers have been losing jobs as the rest of the economy was adding them. Let's just get back to the old level. Unemployment will drop and we can work even more on getting the economy jump started more from new demand.

 

At the same time, hopefully states and unions can come together to get teacher contracts under control a little bit. It's not a problem everywhere however. In some places in the south, anybody can teach! That should probably change too. But most of you probably think education should be a state thing only. But, I believe there are plenty of benefits of setting the same standards across the countries for not only students, but teachers too. We need to recruit teachers who really care about their profession and are dedicated to teaching.

Mitt Romney has NOT proposed to extend the "Bush tax cuts for the top two percent".

 

Honestly. Just THINK for a minute so, at the very least, you're making an argument that has basis in reality.

[B-Man]

The Left has no limits to indecency.

The advertising agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners has just released a pro-Obama commercial featuring children singing about a variety of disgraceful things including an America - supposedly under President Romney - where "sick people just die" and "oil fills the sea"

 

http://vimeo.com/52195925

 

Imagine an America

Where strip mines are fun and free

Where gays can be fixed

And sick people just die

And oil fills the sea

 

We don't have to pay for freeways!

Our schools are good enough

Give us endless wars

On foreign shores

And lots of Chinese stuff

 

We're the children of the future

American through and through

But something happened to our country

And we're kinda blaming you

 

We haven't killed all the polar bears

But it's not for lack of trying

Big Bird is sacked

The Earth is cracked

And the atmosphere is frying

 

Congress went home early

They did their best we know

You can't cut spending

With elections pending

Unless it's welfare dough

 

We're the children of the future

American through and through

But something happened to our country

And we're kinda blaming you

 

Find a park that is still open

And take a breath of poison air

They foreclosed your place

To build a weapon in space

But you can write off your au pair

 

It's a little awkward to tell you

But you left us holding the bag

When we look around

The place is all dumbed down

And the long term's kind of a drag

 

We're the children of the future

American through and through

But something happened to our country

And yeah, we're blaming you

 

You did your best

You failed the test

 

Mom and Dad

We're blaming you!

 

Nice, huh?

The campaign is called The Future Children Project and it claims, "Re-electing President Obama is a momentous decision that will require every single voter. What would the children of the future say if we let them down this November?"

For those unfamiliar with this ad agency, they're responsible for campaigns such as "Got Milk?"

 

http://newsbusters.o...l#ixzz2AWKk2Y1Y

 

.

Edited October 27, 2012 by B-Man

[mead107]

Why is it in NY teachers have to get a masters degree to teach kids with in so many years? I just don't see where that helps a teacher become a better teacher. Seems most get it in administrative field only to better themselves and not the kids anyway.

 

My kids went to school with 25 to 30 kids in the classrooms. They seemed to be doing ok.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I'm assuming you are talking about Obama's plan? Yes, I support a good chunk of what he brings to the table. Plus, I support some of the things he has accomplished over the last four years as well.

Yea, but you also think defecit spending for the sake of creating demand leads to prosperity, so...

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why is it in NY teachers have to get a masters degree to teach kids with in so many years? I just don't see where that helps a teacher become a better teacher. Seems most get it in administrative field only to better themselves and not the kids anyway.

 

My kids went to school with 25 to 30 kids in the classrooms. They seemed to be doing ok.

A Masters in Education is among the most useless field specific degrees. Teachers would be must better suited getting their degree in the field they plan to instruct in. Unfortunately, the inferior Education degree is what's required.

[Duck_dodgers007]

 

 

As for 'details': How much more detailed can the Governor be?

 

1- He has said that he wants to lower marginal tax RATES by 20% across the board.

2- He has said that the 'wealthy' won't pay any less a share of the income tax as they do now.

3- He has said that he wants to close tax 'loopholes' to 'pay' for that 20% across order to make it work.

He very clearly said that he would veto any legislation that came across his desk that didn't adhere

 

 

 

Sounds like Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan, lol.

 

PTR is right and you are wrong, Romney has not said, and won't say what tax breaks he will make the middle class pay more with by eliminating because he thinks he can fool people like you by not saying anything. I mean Duh!

[meazza]

 

 

Sounds like Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan, lol.

 

PTR is right and you are wrong, Romney has not said, and won't say what tax breaks he will make the middle class pay more with by eliminating because he thinks he can fool people like you by not saying anything. I mean Duh!

 

Actually Erin Burnett of CNN just fact checked Obama's economic plan and came up with the same conclusion (math doesn't add up) but that doesn't seem to be stopping you from supporting him now, has it?

[DC Tom]

I wanted to make a thread to talk only about Mitt Romney and his "plans" (mainly economic) for the country. What is he bringing to the table that will make us a better country now and in the future. He has been overly vague and it is pretty much fact now that is tax policy proposals are basically impossible mathematically along with balancing a budget.

 

He is so vague about things that it is hard to get a sense of what he will actually do or at least propose. The guy is saying anything that sounds good right now to get elected. It's a little scary that he is basically running on nothing and is close to winning.

 

The evil Paul Krugman has a new column comparing the two candidate's economic plans : http://www.nytimes.c...erity.html?_r=0

 

So, maybe some of his supporters here can give me their take why Mitt is better for the country without insulting our current President. You can compare policy but at least try to keep the focus on Romney. Or I guess you can direct me to his website!

 

Krugman's article doesn't compare Romney's and Obama's plans. Krugman points out Obama's goals, then jumps up and down, waving his arms and screaming "Romney doesn't have a plan, he has goals!"

 

That's not a comparison.

[jjamie12]

Sounds like Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan, lol.

 

PTR is right and you are wrong, Romney has not said, and won't say what tax breaks he will make the middle class pay more with by eliminating because he thinks he can fool people like you by not saying anything. I mean Duh!

Mitt Romney, very clearly, has said that the 'details' of how to get where he wants to lead to are going to be up to bi-partisan negotiations. He's said, very clearly, that he doesn't want to 'spell out the details' because that puts people in a position, prior to the bi-partisan negotiation, of defending positions in that negotiation,that may or may not make sense. See, he's a real leader. A person with experience who understands that saying: These are my specific decuctions that we'll cap or eliminate boxes people in. He understands that you need a bi-partisan negotiation and that the most effective way of getting there is to state the goal and let the negotiations make there way there. In fact, we might even get a better tax reform by putting all ideas on the table rather than trying to cram Gov. Romney's details down everyone's throat. I know we're not used to leadership like that but maybe we should give it a shot?

[3rdnlng]

Mitt Romney, very clearly, has said that the 'details' of how to get where he wants to lead to are going to be up to bi-partisan negotiations. He's said, very clearly, that he doesn't want to 'spell out the details' because that puts people in a position, prior to the bi-partisan negotiation, of defending positions in that negotiation,that may or may not make sense. See, he's a real leader. A person with experience who understands that saying: These are my specific decuctions that we'll cap or eliminate boxes people in. He understands that you need a bi-partisan negotiation and that the most effective way of getting there is to state the goal and let the negotiations make there way there. In fact, we might even get a better tax reform by putting all ideas on the table rather than trying to cram Gov. Romney's details down everyone's throat. I know we're not used to leadership like that but maybe we should give it a shot?

 

Sort of a different approach than just telling Nancy & Harry to get him a healthcare bill, eh?

[Oxrock]

 

Mitt Romney, very clearly, has said that the 'details' of how to get where he wants to lead to are going to be up to bi-partisan negotiations. He's said, very clearly, that he doesn't want to 'spell out the details' because that puts people in a position, prior to the bi-partisan negotiation, of defending positions in that negotiation,that may or may not make sense. See, he's a real leader. A person with experience who understands that saying: These are my specific decuctions that we'll cap or eliminate boxes people in. He understands that you need a bi-partisan negotiation and that the most effective way of getting there is to state the goal and let the negotiations make there way there. In fact, we might even get a better tax reform by putting all ideas on the table rather than trying to cram Gov. Romney's details down everyone's throat. I know we're not used to leadership like that but maybe we should give it a shot?

I've been trying to think what to type. Thank you for putting down what my bourbon soaked mind could not come up with.

 

 

 

Sort of a different approach than just telling Nancy & Harry to get him a healthcare bill, eh?

Exactly.