Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
MORMON CHURCH must be loving this with their breeding farms.......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.
Yep. Additionally only ~half the population pays federal income taxes, and those that do pay income taxes are less likely to qualify for the stimulus, as there are income limits for any payments.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.
If there's no money in there to bail out the pension funds of state bureaucrat unions and payola to the democrat governors who foolishly kept their states locked down, it's no deal.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.
Yep. Additionally only ~half the population pays federal income taxes, and those that do pay income taxes are less likely to qualify for the stimulus, as there are income limits for any payments.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.
It's simply more wealth redistribution, as usual.
Is it limited to American citizens only?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?
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.
Mitt Romney is, has been and always will be a RINO.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.
You have a real low opinion of poorer folksMORMON CHURCH must be loving this with their breeding farms.......
Its a way to steal money from taxpayers to pay back Romneys backers..
It will encourage druggies and welfare hos to have more and more kids that they can't take care financially or any other way.
