What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mitt Romney unveils plan to provide $3,000 per child, giving bipartisan support to President Biden’s effort

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,598
Reaction score
4,542
Points
415
Damn...Mitt want to cancel all welfare..TANF and such..and replace it with direct cash payments?


Romney’s proposal would provide $4,200 per year for every child up to the age of 6, as well as $3,000 per year for every child age 6 to 17. Senior Democrats are currently drafting legislation as part of their $1.9 trillion stimulus proposal that would provide $3,600 per year for every child up to the age of 6, as well as $3,000 for every child aged 6 to 17.
The emergence of Romney’s child benefits plan as Democrats prepare a similar effort could give the White House an opportunity to incorporate policies with bipartisan support into its relief package. Romney has said Biden’s stimulus proposal is too expensive, meaning he may vote against the broader plan even if it includes much of his new child benefits proposal.
Romney’s new plan, like the one being explored by senior Democrats, would provide the benefit monthly by depositing it directly in taxpayer bank accounts. Advocates for expanding child benefits say they will make an enormous dent in child poverty in the United States, although some conservative scholars argue the benefits may discourage parents from pursuing employment. The extent of GOP support for Romney’s proposal is unclear.

Unlike Democrats’ plan, Romney’s Family Security Act would be paid for, in part, by eliminating Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a welfare program, as well as other existing federal tax credits for children and working families. Many Democrats are likely to oppose this part of Romney’s plan.


The major difference from Biden's plan...to Mitts--Mitt's plan pays for itself..albeit at eliminating the EIC for families--it effect, this targets the benefit to the lower income brackets.,.,.and mitt's plan is deficit neutral--it is a shift in funds..not a new expense!

The Dems want the old AND the new...I like Mitt's plan better and so do the experts.

Romney’s plan differs from Biden’s in several key ways. Romney is proposing to pay for the measure by both consolidating existing government programs and ending a policy that lets Americans deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes off their federal tax obligations, a move Democrats are expected to oppose, especially those representing areas with higher taxes.
If enacted, Romney’s plan would be deficit-neutral and finance the new child benefit through 2025, the Niskanen Center’s analysis found.
Biden has proposed a one-year expansion of the child benefit that would add about $120 billion to the deficit. Senior Democrats and Biden officials have said they aim to make the benefit permanent after it is potentially approved for one year in the current stimulus package.

Under Romney’s plan, the size of the benefit would also begin to diminish at above $200,000 in annual income for single tax filers, as well as $400,000 for joint filers. Democrats have not detailed income thresholds on the child tax credit expansion they are expected to unveil in days.
 
Last edited:

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
9,848
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
One can hope that one of these days, the populace as a whole will wake up to the fact that government taking a large amount of our income in taxes, and then giving us a much smaller amount back as a “stimulus” leaves us poorer than if government just let us keep our own money to begin with.

It's like the cliché about government breaking your leg, and then you're supposed to be grateful when government provides you with a crutch.
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
9,230
Reaction score
15,116
Points
2,288
Location
Texas Hill Country
Damn...Mitt want to cancel all welfare..TANF and such..and replace it with direct cash payments?


Romney’s proposal would provide $4,200 per year for every child up to the age of 6, as well as $3,000 per year for every child age 6 to 17. Senior Democrats are currently drafting legislation as part of their $1.9 trillion stimulus proposal that would provide $3,600 per year for every child up to the age of 6, as well as $3,000 for every child aged 6 to 17.
The emergence of Romney’s child benefits plan as Democrats prepare a similar effort could give the White House an opportunity to incorporate policies with bipartisan support into its relief package. Romney has said Biden’s stimulus proposal is too expensive, meaning he may vote against the broader plan even if it includes much of his new child benefits proposal.
Romney’s new plan, like the one being explored by senior Democrats, would provide the benefit monthly by depositing it directly in taxpayer bank accounts. Advocates for expanding child benefits say they will make an enormous dent in child poverty in the United States, although some conservative scholars argue the benefits may discourage parents from pursuing employment. The extent of GOP support for Romney’s proposal is unclear.

Unlike Democrats’ plan, Romney’s Family Security Act would be paid for, in part, by eliminating Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a welfare program, as well as other existing federal tax credits for children and working families. Many Democrats are likely to oppose this part of Romney’s plan.


The major difference from Biden's plan...to Mitts--Mitt's plan pays for itself..albeit at eliminating the EIC for families--it effect, this targets the benefit to the lower income brackets.,.,.and mitt's plan is deficit neutral--it is a shift in funds..not a new expense!

The Dems want the old AND the new...I like Mitt's plan better and so do the experts.

Romney’s plan differs from Biden’s in several key ways. Romney is proposing to pay for the measure by both consolidating existing government programs and ending a policy that lets Americans deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes off their federal tax obligations, a move Democrats are expected to oppose, especially those representing areas with higher taxes.
If enacted, Romney’s plan would be deficit-neutral and finance the new child benefit through 2025, the Niskanen Center’s analysis found.
Biden has proposed a one-year expansion of the child benefit that would add about $120 billion to the deficit. Senior Democrats and Biden officials have said they aim to make the benefit permanent after it is potentially approved for one year in the current stimulus package.

Under Romney’s plan, the size of the benefit would also begin to diminish at above $200,000 in annual income for single tax filers, as well as $400,000 for joint filers. Democrats have not detailed income thresholds on the child tax credit expansion they are expected to unveil in days.

LOL! Buying out welfare with cash payments.
 
OP
EvilEyeFleegle

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,598
Reaction score
4,542
Points
415
One can hope that one of these days, the populace as a whole will wake up to the fact that government taking a large amount of our income in taxes, and then giving us a much smaller amount back as a “stimulus” leaves us poorer than if government just let us keep our own money to begin with.

It's like the cliché about government breaking your leg, and then you're supposed to be grateful when government provides you with a crutch.
OK..not sure what that has to do with the OP...but cool beans. This is not a stimulus proposal...it's a proposed sweeping change in policy..the largest one in a generation.
As the article says..you did read it, right...Mitt's proposal is deficit neutral.

I have a feeling that Mitt's proposal will find a home in family-oriented Utah, eh?
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
7,530
Points
2,050
Evileyefleegle writes:

The major difference from Biden's plan...to Mitts--Mitt's plan pays for itself..albeit at eliminating the EIC for families--it effect, this targets the benefit to the lower income brackets.,.,.and mitt's plan is deficit neutral--it is a shift in funds..not a new expense!

No it doesn't since ALL of it is FIAT money.

You can't pay it off, since that will involve only other FIAT currency.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
9,848
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
One can hope that one of these days, the populace as a whole will wake up to the fact that government taking a large amount of our income in taxes, and then giving us a much smaller amount back as a “stimulus” leaves us poorer than if government just let us keep our own money to begin with.

It's like the cliché about government breaking your leg, and then you're supposed to be grateful when government provides you with a crutch.
OK..not sure what that has to do with the OP...but cool beans. This is not a stimulus proposal...it's a proposed sweeping change in policy..the largest one in a generation.
As the article says..you did read it, right...Mitt's proposal is deficit neutral.

I have a feeling that Mitt's proposal will find a home in family-oriented Utah, eh?

You don't understand why my point is relevant, because you're ignorant and brainwashed, and don't understand basic math.

If government takes $10,000 from you, spends the bulk of it on nonsense that at best is of no benefit to you whatsoever, and some of which is actually detrimental to you, and then gives you back $2,000 of that, are you better or worse off, than if government did not take that $10,000 from you in the first place?

Someone with a basic elementary-school understanding of math will have no difficulty answering that question correctly. You, not so much, it seems.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
9,848
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West

22lcidw

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
24,206
Reaction score
9,142
Points
895
One can hope that one of these days, the populace as a whole will wake up to the fact that government taking a large amount of our income in taxes, and then giving us a much smaller amount back as a “stimulus” leaves us poorer than if government just let us keep our own money to begin with.

It's like the cliché about government breaking your leg, and then you're supposed to be grateful when government provides you with a crutch.
OK..not sure what that has to do with the OP...but cool beans. This is not a stimulus proposal...it's a proposed sweeping change in policy..the largest one in a generation.
As the article says..you did read it, right...Mitt's proposal is deficit neutral.

I have a feeling that Mitt's proposal will find a home in family-oriented Utah, eh?
We do sure have a lot of single parents. This may be a good thing for the children, but it is another Prog sounding working class/retiree privileged group payoff. Keep the groups infighting as some get paid and others do not.
 
OP
EvilEyeFleegle

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,598
Reaction score
4,542
Points
415
Why should people be paid for having children? Isn't that a lifestyle choice?
Some might ask..'Why should children be penalized for their parents' choices?

My point...Mitt's proposal is deficit neutral and targets those who need help better than the existing programs. Now I get it that many of you hate the existing programs..and would rather nature take care of the issue...to those who hold those views..a hearty 'fuck-off' is in order.

BTW...calling parenthood..'a lifestyle choice' seems a bit limited..given that circumstance often play out in ways that are totally out of control--death, loss of job, health and parental; abandonment..are not lifestyle choices, right?
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
9,848
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Keep the groups infighting as some get paid and others do not.

And the ones that do not are the ones being forced to pay for it.
 

WTH_Progs?

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
9,057
Reaction score
7,075
Points
1,940
Once upon a time the USA believed in family institutions & such. They no longer do.

This is all just staged shit-show political posturing the Demonicrats employ on a regular basis. While Romney claims to be Republican, he's really a Repulsivcan, and that puts him on the same level as Demonicrats.

You'll notice the Demonicrats throw a lot of bones. All while they stuff people into defined victim roles.
 
OP
EvilEyeFleegle

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,598
Reaction score
4,542
Points
415
One can hope that one of these days, the populace as a whole will wake up to the fact that government taking a large amount of our income in taxes, and then giving us a much smaller amount back as a “stimulus” leaves us poorer than if government just let us keep our own money to begin with.

It's like the cliché about government breaking your leg, and then you're supposed to be grateful when government provides you with a crutch.
OK..not sure what that has to do with the OP...but cool beans. This is not a stimulus proposal...it's a proposed sweeping change in policy..the largest one in a generation.
As the article says..you did read it, right...Mitt's proposal is deficit neutral.

I have a feeling that Mitt's proposal will find a home in family-oriented Utah, eh?

You don't understand why my point is relevant, because you're ignorant and brainwashed, and don't understand basic math.

If government takes $10,000 from you, spends the bulk of it on nonsense that at best is of no benefit to you whatsoever, and some of which is actually detrimental to you, and then gives you back $2,000 of that, are you better or worse off, than if government did not take that $10,000 from you in the first place?

Someone with a basic elementary-school understanding of math will have no difficulty answering that question correctly. You, not so much, it seems.
Well..if you were not as ignorant as I know you to be..you would know that your posts thus far have nothing...nothing at all, to do with my OP..which is about the proposed changes to our welfare system..both philosophically and fiscally.

Wanna try again? maybe actually READ the article first..before making an ass out of yourself?
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
9,848
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Well..if you were not as ignorant as I know you to be..you would know that your posts thus far have nothing...nothing at all, to do with my OP..which is about the proposed changes to our welfare system..both philosophically and fiscally.

Wanna try again? maybe actually READ the article first..before making an ass out of yourself?

Ultimately, its' about taking money from us in taxes, giving us a smaller amount of it back, and we're supposed to be grateful for the generosity of government for giving us back a smaller portion of our own money than what it took from us to begin with.

It takes a brainwashed, ignorant LIbtARd to see this as a benefit.
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
9,230
Reaction score
15,116
Points
2,288
Location
Texas Hill Country
Why should people be paid for having children? Isn't that a lifestyle choice?
Some might ask..'Why should children be penalized for their parents' choices?

My point...Mitt's proposal is deficit neutral and targets those who need help better than the existing programs. Now I get it that many of you hate the existing programs..and would rather nature take care of the issue...to those who hold those views..a hearty 'fuck-off' is in order.

BTW...calling parenthood..'a lifestyle choice' seems a bit limited..given that circumstance often play out in ways that are totally out of control--death, loss of job, health and parental; abandonment..are not lifestyle choices, right?

The money isn't going to the children, it's going to the parents.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
9,848
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
The money isn't going to the children, it's going to the parents.

Most of is going to other, irrelevant purposes, that are of no benefit whatsoever to the taxpayers who are being compelled to pay for it.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
57,302
Reaction score
20,583
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
It's not bipartisan. It's Globalist Fusion Party authoritarianism.
 

Missouri_Mike

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
19,240
Reaction score
9,191
Points
940
Is DC a government place or an auction house? This is just stupid.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top