Which loopholes will Romney close?

[Dot Com]

he wouldn't explain how he would square the budget w/ ANOTHER tax-cut ($5 TRILLION) plus showering more $ on the already bloated (its unable to be audited its so huge) Pentagon. I'd call it fuzzy math but Mitt hasn't even attempted to explain how his zaney ideas get paid for. We know it won't be tax-increases on the wealthy (his buddies) so who does that leave?

 

[percysunshine]

Which loopholes will Romney close?

The Obama administration.

Never saw so much money spent on Crony Capitalism in my life. Banks..carmakers...solar companies...GE...the list is endless.

 

[peach174]

neither candidate is being specific, except obama has been clear that he's going to keep increasing the deficit.

If that's not a reason to not vote for him, then you can't be helped

Bishop Willard will increase the debt $8.716 trillion over 10 years and that is without including the cost of his planned war with Iran.

dumbass libtard liar.

He is repeating the lie that Obama is saying.
How about Obama's lie that he will use borrowed military money to pay down the debt.That's a big joke.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Unlike Obama, Romney wants to work WITH the Democrats to determine which loopholes to close. It's called BIPARTISANSHIP, dumb asses. Something Obama never figured out how to work.

srsly? The lack of bipartisanship has been on the part of Congress, not the President.

"Bi-Partisanship is yet another trick. Why would I want my elected official or my party to work with the other party? If I liked the other party's ideas I would have voted for them.

Plus, if they're just gonna' work together to pass each others legislation then why have political parties at all?

 

[eflatminor]

he wouldn't explain how he would square the budget w/ ANOTHER tax-cut ($5 TRILLION) plus showering more $ on the already bloated (its unable to be audited its so huge) Pentagon. I'd call it fuzzy math but Mitt hasn't even attempted to explain how his zaney ideas get paid for.

You confuse a tax RATE cut with what may happen to tax REVENUES. And in that regard, you have no clue what is going to happen to revenues following a tax rate reduction. Sometimes revenues actually increase, sometimes they stay the same, sometimes they drop. You're $5 trillion figure comes directly from your ass...or that of anyone hoping to discredit the idea of flatter, fairer tax rates.

We know it won't be tax-increases on the wealthy (his buddies) so who does that leave?

We already have the most progressive tax rates in the world.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He wouldn't answer the question. Anyone want to express their outrage? I mean, gawd, why can't he just answer the question? We all want to know the answer.

I dunno, pick a number, say 25,000!

 

[peach174]

Unlike Obama, Romney wants to work WITH the Democrats to determine which loopholes to close. It's called BIPARTISANSHIP, dumb asses. Something Obama never figured out how to work.

srsly? The lack of bipartisanship has been on the part of Congress, not the President.

seriously? Not when Obama says Republicans are the enemy.No other President has ever said this.

 

[peach174]

Unlike Obama, Romney wants to work WITH the Democrats to determine which loopholes to close. It's called BIPARTISANSHIP, dumb asses. Something Obama never figured out how to work.

srsly? The lack of bipartisanship has been on the part of Congress, not the President.

"Bi-Partisanship is yet another trick. Why would I want my elected official or my party to work with the other party? If I liked the other party's ideas I would have voted for them.

Plus, if they're just gonna' work together to pass each others legislation then why have political parties at all?

Never mind that it's been done since the beginning of our country.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Unlike Obama, Romney wants to work WITH the Democrats to determine which loopholes to close. It's called BIPARTISANSHIP, dumb asses. Something Obama never figured out how to work.

srsly? The lack of bipartisanship has been on the part of Congress, not the President.

seriously? Not when Obama says Republicans are the enemy.No other President has ever said this.

Did it hurt your pussy?

 

[Dot Com]

he wouldn't explain how he would square the budget w/ ANOTHER tax-cut ($5 TRILLION) plus showering more $ on the already bloated (its unable to be audited its so huge) Pentagon. I'd call it fuzzy math but Mitt hasn't even attempted to explain how his zaney ideas get paid for.

You confuse a tax RATE cut with what may happen to tax REVENUES. And in that regard, you have no clue what is going to happen to revenues following a tax rate reduction. Sometimes revenues actually increase, sometimes they stay the same, sometimes they drop. You're $5 trillion figure comes directly from your ass...or that of anyone hoping to discredit the idea of flatter, fairer tax rates.

We know it won't be tax-increases on the wealthy (his buddies) so who does that leave?

We already have the most progressive tax rates in the world.

the operative word is "sometimes" I'd prolly use the word "rarely":
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter.

read further but be forewarned, it clashes w/ Ryan's (R) ideology. (Sad that Ryan threw Ayn under the bus earlier in the year for political expediency )

 

[eflatminor]

he wouldn't explain how he would square the budget w/ ANOTHER tax-cut ($5 TRILLION) plus showering more $ on the already bloated (its unable to be audited its so huge) Pentagon. I'd call it fuzzy math but Mitt hasn't even attempted to explain how his zaney ideas get paid for.

You confuse a tax RATE cut with what may happen to tax REVENUES. And in that regard, you have no clue what is going to happen to revenues following a tax rate reduction. Sometimes revenues actually increase, sometimes they stay the same, sometimes they drop. You're $5 trillion figure comes directly from your ass...or that of anyone hoping to discredit the idea of flatter, fairer tax rates.



We already have the most progressive tax rates in the world.

the operative word is "sometimes" I'd prolly use the word "rarely"

Excellent, then you agree claiming you know exactly what will happen to revenue following a change in tax rates is...bullshit. That's great, it takes a man to admit when he is wrong.

That there is much evidence to suggest the operative word is "likely" matters not. That you now understand you cannot make claims like you did demonstrates wonderful progress on your part. Congratulations.

 

[Dot Com]

You confuse a tax RATE cut with what may happen to tax REVENUES. And in that regard, you have no clue what is going to happen to revenues following a tax rate reduction. Sometimes revenues actually increase, sometimes they stay the same, sometimes they drop. You're $5 trillion figure comes directly from your ass...or that of anyone hoping to discredit the idea of flatter, fairer tax rates.



We already have the most progressive tax rates in the world.

the operative word is "sometimes" I'd prolly use the word "rarely"

Excellent, then you agree claiming you know exactly what will happen to revenue following a change in tax rates is...bullshit. That's great, it takes a man to admit when he is wrong.

That there is much evidence to suggest the operative word is "likely" matters not. That you now understand you cannot make claims like you did demonstrates wonderful progress on your part. Congratulations.

you conveniently left out my link supporting my position.

 

[eflatminor]

the operative word is "sometimes" I'd prolly use the word "rarely"

Excellent, then you agree claiming you know exactly what will happen to revenue following a change in tax rates is...bullshit. That's great, it takes a man to admit when he is wrong.

That there is much evidence to suggest the operative word is "likely" matters not. That you now understand you cannot make claims like you did demonstrates wonderful progress on your part. Congratulations.

you conveniently left out my link supporting my position.

No, your link makes it clear that is remains possible that revenues will decrease following a rate reduction. POSSIBLE. You originally stated with certainty:

he wouldn't explain how he would square the budget w/ ANOTHER tax-cut ($5 TRILLION)

So now you know not to claim such things. You're making progress. Excellent.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He wouldn't answer the question. Anyone want to express their outrage? I mean, gawd, why can't he just answer the question? We all want to know the answer.

Obviously you don't want to know he answer to that question because Romney answered it very clearly during the debate. He said he will cap the total amount of deductions anyone can take at a level that will not effect the middle class but will prevent wealthy Americans such as himself and Obama from deducting larger amounts than some one with an average middle class income could deduct.

For example, he said he might work with Congress to cap all deductions at $25,000. The majority of middle and lower class taxpayers don't take separate deductions and will be unaffected by this cap. The average total deductions for all Americans is $25,545, but for those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year, the average total deduction is $38,000 and for those earning over $250,000 a year such as Romney and Obama the average total deduction is $130,000 a year.

The non partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the $25,000 cap on all deductions will generate $1.3 trillion in new revenues over the next ten years, or $130,000,000,000 a year. Obama claims that Romney's proposed tax cuts will cost the government $500,000,000,000 a year meaning that for Romney to keep the pledge he made during the first debate that he will not allow any tax cut to add to the deficit he will have to cut spending and increase tax revenues by reviving the faltering Obama economy sufficiently to cover another $370,000,000,000 a year.

This is certainly no easy thing to do and it is clear the Obama administration doesn't believe it can do this, but this is exactly what Romney did as governor of Mass. when the Democrats there claimed it couldn't be done; he cut spending and encouraged new business investment to revive Mass. debt ravaged economy, putting Mass. taxpayers back to work and turning billions of dollars of debt into billions of dollars of surplus in less than four years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Took me two minutes. From Mittromney.com:

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Gotta' look up "territorial tax system".

Romney didn't say that!! here's what he really said, in context "We succeed because of our individual initiative but ... of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Er. wait, sorry I must have accidentally flipped on the Obama Context Filter

Nevermind

 

[Katzndogz]

The left is so dependent on dictatorship that they can't imagine a circumstance subject to reasoned discussion to determine which loopholes to close that would address the problem while not having secondary harmful effects. The left is just looking for dictates. Tell us which ones you will ORDER closed. If Romney is like obama it comes down to "so let it be written, let it be done". But Romney isn't like obama, he might suggest that a specific loophole be closed, then discuss the issue and perhaps decide this one shouldn't be closed. It should be another one. Then the infantile left could tantrum and say YOU PROMISED! obama would just issue an order without regard to its effect because he felt like issuing that order.

 

[Katzndogz]

Took me two minutes. From Mittromney.com:

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Gotta' look up "territorial tax system".

Romney didn't say that!! here's what he really said, in context "We succeed because of our individual initiative but ... of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Er. wait, sorry I must have accidentally flipped on the Obama Context Filter

Nevermind

When we do succeed it's in spite of one another and most definitely in spite of the govenment.

 

[beretta304]

Which loopholes will Romney close?

Hopefully the one between your ears.

 

[Inthemiddle]

seriously? Not when Obama says Republicans are the enemy.

Obama has continually made compromised proposals to bring both in Congress sides together. But both sides in Congress prefer to act like 5 year olds who demand an all or nothing solution.

No other President has ever said this.

Except pretty much every President in history, when talking about the opposition.

 

[eflatminor]

Obama has continually made compromised proposals to bring both in Congress sides together.

Link?

That sure wasn't the case with Obamacare, but I would love to see these proposals of which you speak. If has made these compromised proposals "continually", it shouldn't be hard to name one or two.