The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover. cite.

Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?

According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.

How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't! By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.

You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.

I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.

There are currently a HUGE pool of money, kept outside the states, because anyone with overseas offices, would be taxed on that money AGAIN, if they brought it back into the US.

That capital tax rate, is one of, if not the highest, corporate tax rate, in the world.

Here's what Germany does: you sell stuff overseas, you pay taxes in that country, (as we do also), and you pay little to NOTHING when you bring that money back to Germany! Their take on it is different than ours, however. Creating jobs is a DUTY written into the German Constitution, and every party takes it dead seriously.

Which is why companies like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and all kinds of German manufactured goods, can compete very well. They make GREAT power tools, I can attest!

That's been a problem with our economy for years, and Romney plans to help fix it. By just lowering the rate, a LOT of money (how much? I don't know. ), will return to the states. And we will be more competitive, in overseas business sales, etc.

I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.

Will it meet a certain specific goal? I don't know. I know cutting taxes massively helped Kennedy out of his recession, it helped Cleveland out of his recession, it helped Reagan out of Carter's recession. And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.

You can match any lie you get from Romney, with two from Obama, so please, let's not go into the "he's a liar", game. Politicians are not known for being strictly tied to the facts. Especially while they are campaigning.

When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:

1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.

2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.

If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.

[ZenGum]

And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.

FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started trying to intervene.

As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't

Fixed that for ya.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started trying to intervene.

As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.

We had VERY high taxes, throughout the 1950's, but the gov't also cut it's spending MAGNIFICENTLY, when WWII, was over. You can tax the rich until they're all bankrupt, but it wouldn't pay for the excesses, and wasteful spending we have today.

@Richlevy - you know who pays all those gov't workers their wages and benefits, don't you? Still feel all warm and cozy about 55,000 more new federal gov't employees?

I'd love to tell you that the recovery with Romney, will start on Day 1 of his term in office, but the federal gov't is a BIG bureaucratic nightmare. If you see an organizational chart of just who reports to Dept. of Homeland Security, it's enough to make you dizzy. It will take time.

[DanaC]

Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.

It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.

And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.

The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.

Showing that SOMEBODY has seen the math on it.

It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.

I agree.

And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.

Which is EXACTLY wrong-headed! Stop right there! Where does the onus lie for this? Right on gov't spending!! But the liberals do NOT NOT NOT want to allow one dollar to be cut from anything, no matter WHAT!

The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.

I agree. But you can't get the Democrats to cut spending -- they will SAY that they will -- did it to Reagan, did it to George Bush I, etc. They refuse to honor their promises on this.

The one time they were forced to, was when the Republicans were in control of Congress, and Clinton was in the White House. The "Contract with America" was in force, and popular, and cuts were made. It's hard for them to admit that it helped our economy a great deal, during the Clinton Administration.

[Adak]

Any recovery of ours is tied directly to the recovery in Europe -- we support their banks, if you don't know.

This is bad news for Europe, AND for us, and our recovery:

Business activity in the eurozone contracted at its fastest pace in almost three-and-a-half years in October, a survey suggests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20067506

Do you STILL believe we need to re-elect a President who can't find his way around a lemonade stand?

[DanaC]

All across the world, in the wake of a global financial crisis, bordering on catastrophe, the truisms of economic theory which have held sway for almost half a century have been shown to be anything but reliable.

You cannot, nor could you ever, cut your way out of a demand led recession. It is utter folly to reduce government spending at precisely the time when it is most needed. People who are unemployed, like their employed counterparts, need food, shelter and consumable goods. Providing state benefits for those people does not remove that money from the economy. It goes back into the market in the form of goods and services purchased.

Removing those state benefits, removes those people from the mainstream market and pushes them into the black market.

At the same time, as those people are pushed into social crisis, basic maintenance costs give way to emergency rescue costs (leaving healthcare until expensive emergency treatment is required - homeless families requiring relatively expensive housing solutions through local and national initiatives, usually underpinned by legal requirements to ensure safety of children - and family breakdown bringing in the need for social service solutions because of the same legal requirements - increased levels of mental stress triggering crisis, etc)

People in work, meanwhile, become far more cautious with their money. Like the investors who become far more cautious with their investments and businesses who become far more cautious in their ventures, working people become more aware of potential risks to their family economy. An increasing fear factor around unemployement, exacerbated by swingeing cuts to local services, does not help increase the confidence and therefore spending activity of working people.

It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.

[Adak]

What do you like about another four years for Obama?

Seriously, I don't see anything attractive about it. He's got no agenda for the economy, since we're already over our heads in massive debt - we CAN'T do that stimulus money plan again. The Democrats know that Obama's budget is miserable, and won't even bother voting on it.

Nothing to look forward to on the economy.

Foreign policy? A disaster, pretty much. Obama has apologized for us, all around the world, and made us look weak - that really helps a lot in dealing with Al Qaeda and Iran.

Except for the instances where he's followed Bush's example, he's done nothing good for us. Sat on his ass while they dragged our Ambassador 's body through the streets of Benghazi - all watched by our reconnaissance drone, as it happened.

Ho Hum. The leader of one of the groups that killed our Ambassador, was found right in the Benghazi hotel, having tea, by a New York Times reporter. Ho hum. Yeah! Obama will hunt them bad guys down, all right!!

I don't see a single thing that Obama has done that's been positive, except allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- that is it.

Close Gitmo? Nope. Get us out of Afghanistan? Nope. Start up a decent nationalized heath care? Nope - it's a disaster. Protect social security or medicare? Nope. He's robbed them of 700 Million dollars and given them an IOU. Hastening the day they go bankrupt. Strengthen our military? Nope, weakened it. Redo the nuclear arms limit treaty? Nope.

He's spent a lot of money on his financial backers - over 800 million (Solendra and A123 alone are over that amount).

He wants to close our coal industry, and limit our oil supply. Fuel is already much higher than it was when he took office.

He won't defend our borders, even though we have SCADS of trafficers crossing it illegally and regularly, with illegals and drugs.

Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security), comes down here and tells us we're safer than ever before on the border - right after two murders from the trafficers! What a *ucking tool she is.
(But it's OK, since she doesn't use email yet).
reason.com/blog/.../its-cute-that-janet-napolitano-avoids-em

She even makes Janet Reno look smart!

I'm in favor of kicking them out if they can't do something a lot more positive for the country, than Obama has. I don't CARE what party they belong to.

[DanaC]

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

[Adak]

It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.

You know sub prime mortgages all came about because of a change in gov't policy to buy them from the banks, without requiring a check of the income of the buyers. You could put down any figure you wanted, no questions asked.

Then the damn derivatives with their tremendous leverages, and next to nothing for collateral. But no, we're not going to stop them!

That didn't come from the Conservatives! Wasteful spending, and excessive spending, are big problems in out gov't.

Yes, our corporate taxes are first or second highest in the world right now, and it DOES hurt our international business, considerably.

When a huge company like GE can pay $0 in taxes, despite making a large profit, you know our tax loopholes have run amuck - and our politicians are the ones who have made it all possible. THEY will pick the "winners" and the "losers", through the power of their taxation, and if you'd like to be a "winner" you better pony up $$$, and get that lobbyist working for you.

When John Kennedy was facing a recession, he cut taxes big time, across the board (taxes had been quite high in the 50's), and his metaphor was it was like a rising tide, which raises all boats, regardless.

He was right, and it got us into a recovery, MUCH faster than whatever Obama's nonsense is doing. Reagan did it, to stop Carter's recession/stagflation crisis. Clinton cut some spending and taxes as well, when forced by Congress, and it also worked wonders for us, at that time.

So, I could believe your completely unsupported argument, or I could believe my own "lying eyes", of a lot of experience.

Hmmm. Which would you choose to believe? Hot air and hand waving on one hand, or your own eyes, on the other hand?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

Wow! That's one hell of an intelligent argument, you have there!

Very befitting a liberal. I know how you struggle with the obvious.

[Stormieweather]

I don't hate Romney, nor do I hate wealthy people. I happen to be content with my personal level of comfort/wealth.

What I DO hate is prevarication, evasion, word manipulation and outright lying.

And I also hate stacking the deck to give wealthy people, who don't need MORE in order to survive, MORE. Particularly when such deck-stacking is done at the expense of those who DO need MORE.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.

I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.

[piercehawkeye45]

Or a troll.