Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me.

[nitroz]

Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me. - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


There’s a great deal to chew on in Mitt Romney’s interview with Bob Schieffer, which just aired on CBS.

Romney repeatedly refused to say whether he’d repeal Obama’s order to halt deportations of DREAM-eligible youth. He confirmed that he would not agree to even one dollar in new revenues in exchange for 10 dollars in spending cuts. And he again reiterated that his response to the crisis would be to cut government, in order to “ignite growth,” even though economists say that more austerity now would make the crisis worse.

EDITED FOR LENGTH: MODERATION TEAM

 

[Mr. H.]

Screw all that deductions/write-offs/tax cut shit.
Politicians should shut the fuck up and slowly, in little itty-bitty increments- jink the tax tables over the years so we all pay more. And increase the god damn gasoline tax for chrissakes.

Why does it have to be a broadcast Hollywood extravaganza? Do it- get on with it- move on.

So much fucking drama.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

ha ha taxes. whoop-dee-deep-doo-doo

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Ask anyone currently in Louisiana how a massive tax cut policy is working out. The State is tettering on insolvency and still can't attract businesses because the infrastructure and schools are broken.

Tax breaks are like anything in life: Good in small doses, but fatal in large quantities. You have to have some tax income to maintain the basics of law enforcement, infrastructure, education, and health services.

 

[The Rabbi]

States with lower taxes beat states with high taxes for growth. Period.
As to Romney, why should he lay out every detail? Just keep it simple, like Hope n Change.

 

[Lakhota]

There are no guarantees when it comes to taxes and economic development. But without abundant natural resources or heavy tourism or the generosity of a neighbor, no state in the United States has been able to sustain high prosperity without a robust tax base. The data speaks clearly on this point. Let's trust it.

Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States

 

[nitroz]

Well, look at it from another perspective. What about employees for the state such as teachers, firefighters, police, etc? They will be out of jobs which will just lead to increased unemployment and it could get worse.

Should we cut taxes and save our pocket change at the risk of Education, Crime Rates, Emergency Response and Increased Unemployment? No.


14,500 teachers, cops, and firefighters were laid off when Romney was governor.





Tax breaks for the rich won't solve our problem. If they can't generate revenue, then how will they make the national debt go down?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, look at it from another perspective. What about employees for the state such as teachers, firefighters, police, etc? They will be out of jobs which will just lead to increased unemployment and it could get worse.

Should we cut taxes and save our pocket change at the risk of Education, Crime Rates, Emergency Response and Increased Unemployment? No.


14,500 teachers, cops, and firefighters were laid off when Romney was governor.





Tax breaks for the rich won't solve our problem. If they can't generate revenue, then how will they make the national debt go down?

Why does the left think every gov't employee is a cop, teacher or firefighter?

 

[SniperFire]

ROMNEY: Well Simpson Bowles went though a process of saying how they would be able to reach a setting where they had actually under their proposal even more revenue, with lower rates. So, mathematically it’s been proved to be possible: We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions.

See?

You put the grownup in office - sit down and then just work it out.

This of course means that Harry Reid must go. Harry Reid refuses to do budgets.

Or perhaps you think Romney should try to be a little tinhat dictator like the Oblunder and just decree spending? We see what that has bought us:

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are no guarantees when it comes to taxes and economic development. But without abundant natural resources or heavy tourism or the generosity of a neighbor, no state in the United States has been able to sustain high prosperity without a robust tax base. The data speaks clearly on this point. Let's trust it.

Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States

Show me a chart that includes net incomes.

One may make less but if he keeps more the net result can be very similar to one who makes more but keeps less. That's why 250K a year in NY is not the same as 250K a year in New Hampshire.

 

[SniperFire]

Tax breaks for the rich won't solve our problem.

You have been programmed to say that like a good Libbot.

Currently, the 'rich' pay their greatest share of the Federal Income Tax burden they have ever paid in our long, glorious history.

Washington's dirty little secret is that the working class is no longer paying their ' fair share'.

This is due to the economic downturn and the middle-class part of the Bush tax cuts - which is where 80% of the money lies.

Truth is, we need a combination of furious economic growth, spending restraints and gradual increase of middle class tax receipts (not necessarily a rate increase) to close the deficit gap and begin to repay the debt.

 

[SniperFire]

Tax Burden of Wealthiest Twice Their Share of Income

As we have shown here before Record Number of Tax Filers Paid No Federal Income Taxes in 2008 | Tax Foundation, lawmakers' attempts to help the middle class have knocked a record 52 million taxpayers off the tax rolls. A family of four earning up to $52,000 will pay no income taxes because of the generosity of the credits and deductions currently in the tax code.
The discussion the nation should be having is at what point does this disparity between payers and non-payers :

Tax Burden of Wealthiest Twice Their Share of Income | Tax Foundation

 

[Sallow]

The discussion we should be having at this point is why do people think it's a good thing to have a class of extremely wealthy folks that leech off the country at every turn?

 

[Sallow]

Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me. - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


There’s a great deal to chew on in Mitt Romney’s interview with Bob Schieffer, which just aired on CBS.

Romney repeatedly refused to say whether he’d repeal Obama’s order to halt deportations of DREAM-eligible youth. He confirmed that he would not agree to even one dollar in new revenues in exchange for 10 dollars in spending cuts. And he again reiterated that his response to the crisis would be to cut government, in order to “ignite growth,” even though economists say that more austerity now would make the crisis worse.

But I wanted to flag this exchange in particular, in which Romney seemed to confirm that he will not be detailing how he would pay for his proposed tax cuts for the duration of the campaign:

SCHIEFFER: You haven’t been bashful about telling us yo want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you’re going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to — when are you going to be able to tell us that?

ROMNEY: Well, we’ll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and the exemptions —

SCHIEFFER: But do you have an ideas now, like the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, the various ones?

ROMNEY: Well Simpson Bowles went though a process of saying how they would be able to reach a setting where they had actually under their proposal even more revenue, with lower rates. So, mathematically it’s been proved to be possible: We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions.

Romney went on to pledge, as he has in the past, that under his plan, the wealthy would continue to pay the same share of the tax burden as they do now. “I’m not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest,” he said. In other words, the disproportionally larger tax cut the wealthy would get from the across-the-board cut in rates he’s proposing would be offset by closing deductions and loopholes the rich currently enjoy. But asked twice by Schieffer how exactly he would do this, Romney refused to say, beyond noting that this has been mathematically proven to be possible. And in his first reply above, he confirmed that the details would be worked out with Congress when he is president — which is to say, not during the campaign.

As you may recall, Romney made big news when he was overheard at a private fundraiser revealing to donors a few of the specific ways he’d pay for his massive tax cuts. Since then, details have been in short supply. And today, Romney seemed to confirm that he sees no need to reveal those details until he becomes president.

The message, in a nutshell: No, the rich won’t make out better than everyone else under my plan. No need to say how this would work in practice. Just trust me!

****************************************

UPDATE: Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt responds:

Mitt Romney has made clear that — for political reasons — he’s not going to disclose how he would pay for his $5 trillion tax cuts. So he’s either secretly raising taxes on a whole segment of the population he won’t disclose, making even more devastating cuts to programs essential to the middle class like education or exploding the deficit by 5 trillion dollars.

You can't make this stuff up.

But I like it. Romney is just an incredibly bad candidate.

 

[SniperFire]

The discussion we should be having at this point is why do people think it's a good thing to have a class of extremely wealthy folks that leech off the country at every turn?

That has always been a topic of discussion amongst you Communists.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.... not so much.

 

[editec]

What can Romney cut to offset his $5 Trillion in tax decreases?

Or is he planning on cutting taxes and paying for those reduced revenues by increasing the national debt as is the TYPICAL thing that the GOP has done over the years?

TAX CUT AND BORROW is a really bad plan, in my opinion

 

[rdean]

American helping American is patriotism, not socialism. The Republican leadership believes you are only a "true" American if you have 200 million or more in an offshore hidden account. It's those "real" Americans that we need to help. I tend to disagree.

 

[mudwhistle]

Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me. - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


There’s a great deal to chew on in Mitt Romney’s interview with Bob Schieffer, which just aired on CBS.

Romney repeatedly refused to say whether he’d repeal Obama’s order to halt deportations of DREAM-eligible youth. He confirmed that he would not agree to even one dollar in new revenues in exchange for 10 dollars in spending cuts. And he again reiterated that his response to the crisis would be to cut government, in order to “ignite growth,” even though economists say that more austerity now would make the crisis worse.

But I wanted to flag this exchange in particular, in which Romney seemed to confirm that he will not be detailing how he would pay for his proposed tax cuts for the duration of the campaign:

SCHIEFFER: You haven’t been bashful about telling us yo want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you’re going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to — when are you going to be able to tell us that?

ROMNEY: Well, we’ll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and the exemptions —

SCHIEFFER: But do you have an ideas now, like the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, the various ones?

ROMNEY: Well Simpson Bowles went though a process of saying how they would be able to reach a setting where they had actually under their proposal even more revenue, with lower rates. So, mathematically it’s been proved to be possible: We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions.

Romney went on to pledge, as he has in the past, that under his plan, the wealthy would continue to pay the same share of the tax burden as they do now. “I’m not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest,” he said. In other words, the disproportionally larger tax cut the wealthy would get from the across-the-board cut in rates he’s proposing would be offset by closing deductions and loopholes the rich currently enjoy. But asked twice by Schieffer how exactly he would do this, Romney refused to say, beyond noting that this has been mathematically proven to be possible. And in his first reply above, he confirmed that the details would be worked out with Congress when he is president — which is to say, not during the campaign.

As you may recall, Romney made big news when he was overheard at a private fundraiser revealing to donors a few of the specific ways he’d pay for his massive tax cuts. Since then, details have been in short supply. And today, Romney seemed to confirm that he sees no need to reveal those details until he becomes president.

The message, in a nutshell: No, the rich won’t make out better than everyone else under my plan. No need to say how this would work in practice. Just trust me!

****************************************

UPDATE: Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt responds:

Mitt Romney has made clear that — for political reasons — he’s not going to disclose how he would pay for his $5 trillion tax cuts. So he’s either secretly raising taxes on a whole segment of the population he won’t disclose, making even more devastating cuts to programs essential to the middle class like education or exploding the deficit by 5 trillion dollars.

You can't make this stuff up.

But I like it. Romney is just an incredibly bad candidate.

And we have an incredibly bad president who hid his true agenda before he was elected and still is hiding it.

A president that hires armies of lawyers and private investigators to attack competitors and their donors.


The less these folks know about your policies the less they can attack. Also the less you give them to attack the less they can lie about it.

 

[MeBelle]

Well, look at it from another perspective. What about employees for the state such as teachers, firefighters, police, etc? They will be out of jobs which will just lead to increased unemployment and it could get worse.

Should we cut taxes and save our pocket change at the risk of Education, Crime Rates, Emergency Response and Increased Unemployment? No.

14,500 teachers, cops, and firefighters were laid off when Romney was governor.

Tax breaks for the rich won't solve our problem. If they can't generate revenue, then how will they make the national debt go down?

Here is where government needs to think out of the box.

Teachers, Firefighters and Leos are the states responsibilty to fund, not the federal governenment's. Unless of course, one wishes for another 'stimulus', which only kicks the can down the road.

Many private employers/employees are hurting:
1) They have seen their insurance rates increase and some who have had employer paid health insurance, well...the employer can't afford paying the high cost of employee HI, so they have passed the HI plans on to the employees.
1a) In #1, if employers hadn't forwarded the employee paid HI, in reality, the employer would have to lose some of their labor = unemployed people. Like it or not, employers need to make a living too. With less labor production is lower= less product to market, which can = the eventual fail of a business.
2) Many employers have cut matching 401k contributions for their employees.
This does not mean that employees cannot save for the future.
3) Many employers have initiated a pay freeze.

~ The win-wins in this private employer situation is, ALL employees can keep their jobs and NOT be laid off.
~ Employees can and do realize they can 'live' with a few bucks less, rather than being unemployed.
~ Employees equally share in keeping the company above water and can weather through the bad times.
**********************************
Now if the Federal Government worked the same way as private industry, where EVERYONE shares the burden, zero jobs will be lost.

**Just out of curiosity, could you please find a news article or real proof (not a blog) to the part that I highlighted for you.
I am very curious about this happening.
Thanks in advance,

​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, look at it from another perspective. What about employees for the state such as teachers, firefighters, police, etc? They will be out of jobs which will just lead to increased unemployment and it could get worse.

Should we cut taxes and save our pocket change at the risk of Education, Crime Rates, Emergency Response and Increased Unemployment? No.


14,500 teachers, cops, and firefighters were laid off when Romney was governor.





Tax breaks for the rich won't solve our problem. If they can't generate revenue, then how will they make the national debt go down?

Why does the left think every gov't employee is a cop, teacher or firefighter?

Good point. We need to include the military in that list.