Romney: Why tax cut is a bad deal

Ice Dancer said:
I think he is absolutely astute in his opinion...Unless republicans begin to cut spending when they are seated and work towards a permanent solution for economic growth that is business friendly- they will be the ones to get a shellacking in 2012
Click to expand...

For once you've said something I can agree with. The plan of Republicon party for the next 2 yrs is to obstruct everything Obama and the Dems try to do. It's not about getting this country back on it's feet, it's all about the power of the presidency.

Dont believe me?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made a strategic decision: His main goal, he says, is to ensure that President Barack Obama only serves one term...
To render Obama so unpopular that voters will deny him a second term, Republicans must thwart any proposal that that could benefit him politically..."

If Republicons don't work with Obama for the next 2 years your party will be shown for what it really is, finally.
 
Crashk said:
For once you've said something I can agree with. The plan of Republicon party for the next 2 yrs is to obstruct everything Obama and the Dems try to do. It's not about getting this country back on it's feet, it's all about the power of the presidency.

Dont believe me?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made a strategic decision: His main goal, he says, is to ensure that President Barack Obama only serves one term...
To render Obama so unpopular that voters will deny him a second term, Republicans must thwart any proposal that that could benefit him politically..."

If Republicons don't work with Obama for the next 2 years your party will be shown for what it really is, finally.
Click to expand...

They have already "worked with Obama" in this tax bill. Republicans have a responsibility to "THEIR" constituency and that would be to reign in spending; get rid of the health care behemoth; and reduce the deficit to stimulate economic growth. I contend that the best way to do that is by creating business friendly tax policy and reduced spending.

Every congress hopes to get rid of the executive of the opposing party.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But again, it isn't uncertain what happens in two years. In fact, it is quite clear. Taxes increase.

And if uncertainty is so damned terrible I guess we'll see the US Chamber of Commerce and every small business owner in the country begging Congress to pass this compromise and leave everything alone for the foreseeable future. Right?
Click to expand...

But as the article stated there are many of these provisions and a good number of them get renewed so if a company starts to underwrite future forecasts with all provisions not getting renewed it is not going to be competitive in the marketplace.
 
Crashk said:
The plan of Republicon party for the next 2 yrs is to obstruct everything Obama and the Dems try to do.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an excellent plan. Funny how when you libtards get both houses and the Presidency lined up you steamroll shit right over the American people but when we take back the House you start talking about cooperation. :)
 
cawacko said:
But as the article stated there are many of these provisions and a good number of them get renewed so if a company starts to underwrite future forecasts with all provisions not getting renewed it is not going to be competitive in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

Well, presumably they are renewed to benefit the businesses. If the companies favor certainty over tax cuts, they should ask Congress to stop renewing them.
 
Crashk said:
Let's ask Romney about his red long johns. Ask him what planet God lives on. Ask him about the secret name he has given his wife so when she dies he can call that name so she can get to heaven. Romney is a member of a very dangerous cult.

Romney will be sponsored by the Republicon party and foreign money for prez. Why did Beck change 'religions' and become a mormon? He knows where the money is.

Sorry SM, but palin only appeals to the most uneducated of faux news idiots. Even Faux knows she hasn't a chance.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad you warned me about Romney's Mormon status. Now I can support him no longer...
 
Ice Dancer said:
They have already "worked with Obama" in this tax bill. Republicans have a responsibility to "THEIR" constituency and that would be to reign in spending; get rid of the health care behemoth; and reduce the deficit to stimulate economic growth. I contend that the best way to do that is by creating business friendly tax policy and reduced spending.

Every congress hopes to get rid of the executive of the opposing party.
Click to expand...

But every congress is supposed to work for the benefit of the people, not business profits. We know that the Republicons have a responsibility to the monied interests both foreign and domestic that got them elected.

Yea, Faux news has been tossing the 'business friendly' propaganda lately. It's bullshit. Where were you the last 10 years when all these problems were coming to a head? You backed everything that got us into this mess and now you want to cast blame on someone else and refuse to help solve the problems. Unless you claim to be a libertarian and vote republicon but refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
 
Crashk said:
But every congress is supposed to work for the benefit of the people, not business profits. We know that the Republicons have a responsibility to the monied interests both foreign and domestic that got them elected.

Yea, Faux news has been tossing the 'business friendly' propaganda lately. It's bullshit. Where were you the last 10 years when all these problems were coming to a head? You backed everything that got us into this mess and now you want to cast blame on someone else and refuse to help solve the problems. Unless you claim to be a libertarian and vote republicon but refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Click to expand...

That's right...the majority of the people put republicans (and republican philosophy on economic strategy) in power to represent them. So, if they cut spending and pass business friendly tax policy as well as get rid of the monsterous health care bill...they will be benefitting the people. Monied interests are what keep an economy going...not pie in the sky ideology. Without lots and lots of money and a working population the pie stays in the sky.
 
Ice Dancer said:
That's right...the majority of the people put republicans (and republican philosophy on economic strategy) in power to represent them. So, if they cut spending and pass business friendly tax policy as well as get rid of the monsterous health care bill...they will be benefitting the people. Monied interests are what keep an economy going...not pie in the sky ideology. Without lots and lots of money and a working population the pie stays in the sky.
Click to expand...

Where were you when Bush started unfunded wars and turned black ink to red? Where were you when 'republicon philosophy on economic strategy' sent our manufacturing to asia? I realize you want profits over people when it comes to healthcare and are willing to step over dead bodies on your way to work but there are some of us who actually care about the sick.
When you say 'the people' I understand you're not talking about workers but the monied interests that see this country as a cash cow. Come on say what you mean.
 
OTE=NigelTufnel;742528]First of all, the "uncertainty about taxes prevents hiring" argument is unmitigated horseshit. There is a legitimate argument that uncertainty about where the economy is going and whether we can expect robust growth is preventing hiring, but uncertainty about taxes is not a problem. Moreover, where's the uncertainty? In two years taxes increase.
Click to expand...

i don't know a single business that seriously considers a rise in taxes as a sole reason not to hire

Second, tax cuts do not increase revenues. Period. Full stop.
Click to expand...

i don't know why you keep repeating this:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

tax cuts can result in increased revenues

Third, while the compromise increases the deficit, Romney's preferred outcome increases the deficit even more. A permanent extension of all of the Bush tax cuts would increase the deficit by $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

lol...not raising taxes increases the deficit....how about spending less

Fourth, on the payroll tax, if you want to encourage economic growth you want to cut the payroll tax on the employee side. Businesses are flush with cash but they aren't spending it on employees not because it is cost prohibitive but because they don't need the workers. If you want to increase demand and increase the need for workers, you need to increase consumer spending by cutting payroll taxes on the employee side, not the employer side
Click to expand...
.

how much money is going to go to the average employee with his payroll tax cut? from what i read they will not even notice it....and you do realize this nearly contradicts your earlier statement about revenue, economic growth usually results in higher tax revenue
 
Yurt said:
i don't know a single business that seriously considers a rise in taxes as a sole reason not to hire
Click to expand...

Neither do I.


Yurt said:
i don't know why you keep repeating this:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

tax cuts can result in increased revenues
Click to expand...

I keep repeating it because it is true, notwithstanding the link to a document that Dixie loves prepared by the Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee from 1996 that does not support the idea that tax cuts increase revenue.

Reagan cut taxes and revenue decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Bush cut taxes and revenues decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.


Yurt said:
lol...not raising taxes increases the deficit....how about spending less
Click to expand...

That would work in fantasy land, but it never happens in the real world. Int he real world where you are already running deficits and you increase spending while cutting taxes the result is higher deficits.


Yurt said:
how much money is going to go to the average employee with his payroll tax cut? from what i read they will not even notice it....and you do realize this nearly contradicts your earlier statement about revenue, economic growth usually results in higher tax revenue
Click to expand...

It isn't contradictory at all. Cutting taxes can lead to economic growth but not enough to offset the decline in revenues from the rate cuts.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Neither do I.




I keep repeating it because it is true, notwithstanding the link to a document that Dixie loves prepared by the Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee from 1996 that does not support the idea that tax cuts increase revenue.

Reagan cut taxes and revenue decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Bush cut taxes and revenues decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.




That would work in fantasy land, but it never happens in the real world. Int he real world where you are already running deficits and you increase spending while cutting taxes the result is higher deficits.




It isn't contradictory at all. Cutting taxes can lead to economic growth but not enough to offset the decline in revenues from the rate cuts.
Click to expand...

translation:

i can't actually refute the link, so i will attack it source and dixie in the hopes someone believes me

:rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
translation:

i can't actually refute the link, so i will attack it source and dixie in the hopes someone believes me

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


There isn't anything in the link to refute. It doesn't support the idea that tax cuts increase revenues and, if you look at the actual data, you would see that when Regan cut taxes revenues decreased, when Clinton raised taxes revenues increased and when Bush cut taxes revenues decreased.

Also:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
 
NigelTufnel said:
Neither do I.
Click to expand...

Do tell us who stated that it was the sole reason.


Reagan cut taxes and revenue decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Bush cut taxes and revenues decreased in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.
Click to expand...

Link?


That would work in fantasy land, but it never happens in the real world. Int he real world where you are already running deficits and you increase spending while cutting taxes the result is higher deficits.
Click to expand...

ah yes, the standard dem line.... 'well golly gee, if something hasn't happened in the past, it can never happen, therefore we should never try'....

such a convenient comment as it means we should just follow the Dems dream of 'spend spend spend'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top