How Do Republicans Reconcile This?

[RDD_1210]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

 

[OKTexas]

I think you should check your facts, he said he would reduce tax rates by 20%. So you start with a false premis it kind of shoots down the whole thing.

 

[Oldguy]

I'd like to see this question answered:

If Romney's "tax cuts" are revenue neutral, how is that a tax cut and not just a shifting of the tax burden from one group to another? If his "cuts" won't affect how much money the government takes in, why does he get away with calling it a tax cut?

 

[Intense]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

It's your premise that is flawed, not Romney. Are you of the 47% paying zero Federal Income Tax? How does a 20% reduction of those actually pulling the load effect what you pay? How about Everyone pays 20%. Hows that strike you big spender?

 

[Two Thumbs]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

I have a hard time in dealing with partial facts.

but that said

We know from history that tax cuts = increased revenue.

Clinton cut, and Bush cut even more. So cutting elsewhere would generally mean more revenue.

It then feeds the system, [hopefully] decreasing the debt which will = a stronger dollar. A strong dollar means people can pull themselves up.


I work with a man that wants to go to school, but can't afford it b/c he has a job. "If I wasn't working, I could get that money for college."

Turns out the poor bastard wants to pay his own way. What kind of man would do such a thing?

A real man.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think you should check your facts, he said he would reduce tax rates by 20%. So you start with a false premis it kind of shoots down the whole thing.

Sorry I got my facts from this obviously biased source.

Tax | Mitt Romney for President

How does a "across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" reconcile with the crying of the GOP that too many people don't have skin in the game?

 

[theHawk]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

More money left in the free market means more spent in the economy and more jobs. More people working are more taxpayers.

Taxing more people at lower rates brings in more revenue than taxing a few at high rates. A concept liberals fail to grasp.

 

[Intense]

I think you should check your facts, he said he would reduce tax rates by 20%. So you start with a false premis it kind of shoots down the whole thing.

Sorry I got my facts from this obviously biased source.

Tax | Mitt Romney for President

How does a "across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" reconcile with the crying of the GOP that too many people don't have skin in the game?

I think you just feel cheated, not considering the fact that one needs to pay in first to receive the benefit. I guess that the concept is just too abstract for you.

 

[RDD_1210]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

It's your premise that is flawed, not Romney. Are you of the 47% paying zero Federal Income Tax? How does a 20% reduction of those actually pulling the load effect what you pay? How about Everyone pays 20%. Hows that strike you big spender?

This is obviously going right over your head. If 47% are not paying federal income taxes, some are just barely not paying, and some are just barely paying a little bit at the moment keeping them out of the 47%. Now if those people receive a cut in taxes and that pushes them in to the group of non-payers that would only increase that 47%. How is this ok with you?

 

[RDD_1210]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

I have a hard time in dealing with partial facts.

but that said

We know from history that tax cuts = increased revenue.

Clinton cut, and Bush cut even more. So cutting elsewhere would generally mean more revenue.

It then feeds the system, [hopefully] decreasing the debt which will = a stronger dollar. A strong dollar means people can pull themselves up.


I work with a man that wants to go to school, but can't afford it b/c he has a job. "If I wasn't working, I could get that money for college."

Turns out the poor bastard wants to pay his own way. What kind of man would do such a thing?

A real man.

You could have just said "I'm a hypocrite" and that would have summed it up.

Besides, what do you care? You're part of the 47% already. I was told that you are a moocher and are the problem with this country.

 

[RDD_1210]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

More money left in the free market means more spent in the economy and more jobs. More people working are more taxpayers.

Taxing more people at lower rates brings in more revenue than taxing a few at high rates. A concept liberals fail to grasp.

Let's stick with what I actually asked. Thanks.

 

[Mr. H.]

Romney was quite correct in that off-camera unauthorized recorded comment. And good for him for saying it.

It sure beats muttering to the leader of Russia "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

We need to be called to the carpet and we need to be told the cold hard facts.

We are fucked. You want a doctor telling you "wait until my employment contract is renewed, then we'll talk"? Our nation is dying on so many levels it's pathetic. And you all want to re-hire a Witch Doctor?

Obama voodoo is a bunch of doo-doo.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think you should check your facts, he said he would reduce tax rates by 20%. So you start with a false premis it kind of shoots down the whole thing.

Sorry I got my facts from this obviously biased source.

Tax | Mitt Romney for President

How does a "across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" reconcile with the crying of the GOP that too many people don't have skin in the game?

I think you just feel cheated, not considering the fact that one needs to pay in first to receive the benefit. I guess that the concept is just too abstract for you.

Holy shit you're slow. I am not saying the 47% will receive an additional benefit from this. I am pointing out that there are people now that are a part of the 53% who do pay something that would become a part of that 47% who don't pay if their rates were dropped further, thus increasing that 47%. How are you ok with this?

 

[RDD_1210]

Romney was quite correct in that off-camera unauthorized recorded comment. And good for him for saying it.

It sure beats muttering to the leader of Russia "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

We need to be called to the carpet and we need to be told the cold hard facts.

We are fucked. You want a doctor telling you "wait until my employment contract is renewed, then we'll talk"? Our nation is dying on so many levels it's pathetic. And you all want to re-hire a Witch Doctor?

Obama voodoo is a bunch of doo-doo.

So why are you ok with increasing that 47%?

 

[oreo]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

First of all you're twisting Romney's words around. What Romney stated is that 47% of the population fall below the bar of paying Federal Taxes & they wouldn't be interested in his plan to lower taxes--on middle class Americans who do pay taxes--so there's no need worrying about them--they wouldn't be interested anyway. Now it came out wrong and the left twisted it into a different meaning--that Romney doesn't care about 47% of the population.

Now every administration--but this one--has noticed that if you let Americans keep more of the money they earn--they tend to spread it around through-out the economy thereby growing the economy--along with the tax base.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894]Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes...even if it means less tax revenue!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RDD_1210]

So Romney says that 47% are dependent on government and don't want to take responsibility for their lives and the parrots on this site say they want the 47% to have more "skin in the game" because they pay no taxes.

Yet, Romney says if he becomes president he will push through a 20% across the board tax cut.

Wouldn't a 20% across the board tax cut result in a greater % of people "not paying taxes"? Isn't that the very opposite of what republicans have been looking for? Wouldn't that mean more people who are "mooching" because they "don't pay taxes"?

Where is the objection to Romneys proposal? How do you support this sort of plan while at the same time criticizing people who you consider to be "moochers"?

First of all you're twisting Romney's words around. What Romney stated is that 47% of the population fall below the bar of paying Federal Taxes & they wouldn't be interested in his plan to lower taxes--on middle class Americans who do pay taxes--so there's no need worrying about them--they wouldn't be interested anyway. Now it came out wrong and the left twisted it into a different meaning--that Romney doesn't care about 47% of the population.

Now every administration--but this one--has noticed that if you let Americans keep more of the money they earn--they tend to spread it around through-out the economy thereby growing the economy--along with the tax base.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894]Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes...even if it means less tax revenue!! - YouTube[/ame]

Another person who can't address what I asked. A tax cut for the people who do pay taxes will lead to some of them no longer having to pay anymore. Thus the 47% total increases. How are you ok with that?

 

[Mr. H.]

Romney was quite correct in that off-camera unauthorized recorded comment. And good for him for saying it.

It sure beats muttering to the leader of Russia "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

We need to be called to the carpet and we need to be told the cold hard facts.

We are fucked. You want a doctor telling you "wait until my employment contract is renewed, then we'll talk"? Our nation is dying on so many levels it's pathetic. And you all want to re-hire a Witch Doctor?

Obama voodoo is a bunch of doo-doo.

So why are you ok with increasing that 47%?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE]Billy Preston - Nothing from nothing 1975 - YouTube[/ame]

The "marginal rate" is the amount of tax paid on an additional dollar of income.

Romney's proposal won't necessarily create more 47%'ers, but it does have the potential to free up funds to create more investment which in turn would create more economic activity which in turn would create more jobs.

You can elect Romney, who wishes to actually move our economy forward or you can elect Obama who needs four more years of "flexibility" (read: more of his nonsensical bullshit).

 

[Charles_Main]

I think you should check your facts, he said he would reduce tax rates by 20%. So you start with a false premis it kind of shoots down the whole thing.

Sorry I got my facts from this obviously biased source.

Tax | Mitt Romney for President

How does a "across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" reconcile with the crying of the GOP that too many people don't have skin in the game?

If you are already paying Nothing you will still pay nothing. If you pay something you will pay 20% less but still something. So your premise that more people will be paying Nothing is totally flawed.

The Real Problem Dems seem to have understanding the Romney plan is 2 things.

First that you Deny that Cutting taxes can stimulate Growth and there for Increase Revenue.

Second that there is more to the equation than just the Tax more or less. The Real meet of making up the gap and not adding to the Deficit should be through spending cuts.

I know libs don't agree, But we don't have a revenue problem, we spend to much, Pure and simple. 2008 was the Largest Revenue the Fed Ever Recorded, and still it was more than a trillion to little to feed the beast.

 

[RDD_1210]

Romney was quite correct in that off-camera unauthorized recorded comment. And good for him for saying it.

It sure beats muttering to the leader of Russia "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

We need to be called to the carpet and we need to be told the cold hard facts.

We are fucked. You want a doctor telling you "wait until my employment contract is renewed, then we'll talk"? Our nation is dying on so many levels it's pathetic. And you all want to re-hire a Witch Doctor?

Obama voodoo is a bunch of doo-doo.

So why are you ok with increasing that 47%?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE]Billy Preston - Nothing from nothing 1975 - YouTube[/ame]

The "marginal rate" is the amount of tax paid on an additional dollar of income.

Romney's proposal won't necessarily create more 47%'ers, but it does have the potential to free up funds to create more investment which in turn would create more economic activity which in turn would create more jobs.

You can elect Romney, who wishes to actually move our economy forward or you can elect Obama who needs four more years of "flexibility" (read: more of his nonsensical bullshit).

How will decreasing the marginal rate not increase the number of 47%'ers? That's what I'm trying to understand.

 

[Charles_Main]

Romney was quite correct in that off-camera unauthorized recorded comment. And good for him for saying it.

It sure beats muttering to the leader of Russia "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

We need to be called to the carpet and we need to be told the cold hard facts.

We are fucked. You want a doctor telling you "wait until my employment contract is renewed, then we'll talk"? Our nation is dying on so many levels it's pathetic. And you all want to re-hire a Witch Doctor?

Obama voodoo is a bunch of doo-doo.

So why are you ok with increasing that 47%?

You have a Problem with Math dude. It is impossible for a 20% cut of all the Rates to lead to more people paying no taxes at all. As I said if you are in the 47% now you will still be, But if you are not. You are getting a 20% tax cut, not a 100% tax cut. You will still be paying in.