Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Romney Economics

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 12:26

It bears repeating that Romney's view of how things work is a hard pill for the rest of us to swallow:

Romney Economics refuses to take responsibility for the future of the next generation. In fact the whole body of radical right wing economic philosophy that Romney has embraced is an absolute abrogation of the concept that we have a responsibility to each other. The core element of that philosophy is the notion that millionaires and billionaires have only one moral obligation -- to look out for themselves. They rationalize this unbridled selfishness with elaborate theories about how their bounty will ultimately trickle down to everyone else -- how they have to make more money because they are -- after all -- the 'job creators.' In fact, of course, the real job creators are ordinary middle class consumers, whose demand causes businesses of all sorts to hire people to produce products and services. Companies don't create jobs because they have more money in their bank accounts or out of the goodness of their hearts. They create jobs because someone has the money in their pockets to buy the things that they sell.

But 'trickle down' economics is really nothing more than an elaborate justification for millionaire selfishness -- for the refusal of the wealthiest Americans to take responsibility for the welfare of the entire community and for the next generation. The advocates of Romney Economics claim to be hugely concerned that we do not leave our children a massive federal debt. But their concern does not carry far enough to allow them to agree to a meager increase in their own tax rates to levels that persisted during the 1990's when our economy added 23 million new jobs and created quite a number of new millionaires. They're responsibility to the next generation does not go far enough to prevent them from despoiling the planet in order to pad their Swiss Bank accounts. It does not prevent them from denying the scientific fact of global climate change in order to prevent oil company profits from declining.

How many economists does it take to proclaim that "trickle down" economics doesn't exist before people listen?

I hope that Obama's campaign continues to make the point that how Romney behaved at Bain and with his own personal financial decisions (vast amounts, not just one, but many, of offshore accounts) reflects on how he will make decisions as President.

Here is a link that might be useful: source


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Romney Economics

Esh, I just don't think they care... the mantra is "anyone but Obama", and that will remain the foremost thought implanted... until post election.

Any trickle from this oft repeated, publicly conditioned ruse named "supply side economics" trickles up, not down... it's been known to be a ruse for a long while, now... quite purposefully created... but too many are none the wiser, and the "job creators"... loud guffaw... are exactly where they want to be, and have us exactly where they want us to be.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

jodik, Exactly.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

The IMF's recommendation is in opposition to his positions, which are with a toilet full of former Bush advisers basic bushwah.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Romney Economics? Isn't that a paradox in and of itself? When have we ever heard a single plan or even a viable idea of what his economic policy would be if he were elected? Yes, abolish this and abolish that (as if that were so easy for a president to do), but what is to take its place? After months of Romney rhetoric I have yet to see any intelligent discussion on his part about what this country needs and how he will bring that about. I'm afraid that behind those empty eyes there resides a rather empty brain.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Yes, he is not very good about telling his story. What was he said? "I'll tell you when I get there?"


 o
RE: Romney Economics

I'm not sure if this fits on this thread but I heard a very interesting comment on TV today.

It was in relation to the huge National Debt you folk have and how you got there. I won't bother you with the facts on what makes up the debt but a comment caught my attention.

Basically the person speaking said that the mess you are in is due to two things, wanting something for nothing and of course the wars and the war machine.

What was interesting was that in addition to talking about entitlements he also spoke to the Bush era "temporary" tax cuts. He said that conservatives, he is a conservative himself, need to accept responsibility for ten years of unfunded tax cuts that now comprise a large part of the deficit. His point was that conservatives want something for nothing just as much as liberals and it is time everyone took ownership of the fiscal mess.

Where was he when I needed him on the other thread! LOL


 o
RE: Romney Economics

I don't think it's true that liberals want something for nothing... I would think it more accurate to say that many liberals would simply like a level playing field in which everyone shares the burden, not just the middle class. Undoing the tax cuts, that were supposed to be temporary in the first place, would help a lot. If they were being paid before, there's no reason they can't be paid again.

I also agree that it would be kind of nice to hear exactly what Romney's solutions are for some of our economic woes, instead of simply having faith in the unknown, and more cuts in programs that the public needs.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

"don't think it's true that liberals want something for nothing..."

I totally disagree Jodi, there are lots of liberals looking to ride on the coattails of others...just as there are conservatives. The enticement attitude is pervasive amongst all stripes and that's the issue.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 18:00

When the Bush tax cuts were enacted the repubs had ZERO notion that they'd ever let them expire. They had always planned to call it a tax hike when the politically advantageous expiration time came up. Now their new bs is that this is no time to raise taxes on the "job creators". The repubs will never agree to a tax increase, even if unemployment were 1%. Most of them have signed away both their soul & conscience to that true patriot Grover Norquist.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 17:49

"don't think it's true that liberals want something for nothing..."
"I totally disagree Jodi, there are lots of liberals looking to ride on the coattails of others...just as there are conservatives. The enticement attitude is pervasive amongst all stripes and that's the issue."

Ain't that the truth?


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Ingrid, interesting you called Romney's eyes empty. I agree. There is just something "off" about the guy.

I love when he says on day one when I am in office I will...fill in the blanks. He's said it many times like he can do anything without congress. His one day agenda would take years.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

it would be kind of nice to hear exactly what Romney's solutions are for some of our economic woes, instead of simply having faith in the unknown, and more cuts in programs that the public needs.

The reason he is not stating what his solutions are is because he knows how unpopular his solutions would be if voters actually knew what he planned to do. Like eliminate (or drastically reduce, to the point that it is totally ineffective) Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare; eliminate the Dept. Education and low-cost college loans; and of course eliminate "obamacare." (Just a few examples)

And why doesn't he tell us what he would put in place of them? Don't you get it? He doesn't plan to replace them with anything--except take responsibility for yourself--which is to say, if you can't afford it, do without. End of story.

If he flat out stated that is his policy, he'd lose even more votes--which is why he tries to keep it all a "secret" for now.

Kate


 o
RE: Romney Economics



The Romney plan in a nutshell.



 o
RE: Romney Economics

There ya go... there's that "looking for a free ride on the coattails of others" right there... thanks, Maddie.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Jodi, I don't understand why you are being defensive about what I said. You can't possibly believe that there aren't liberals who feel that others should pay for what they want, just as there are conservatives who feel the same way.

The real issue is that the huge National debt was built in large part by giving people something for nothing and that includes the unfunded Bush Era tax cuts as well as exploding costs on entitlement programmes.

The mess was created by liberals and conservative, the poor middle class and wealthy, and all of them need to be part of the solution but not disproportionally which is what the Ryan Budget and Mr Romeny's vagaries call for.

The real problem is to many expect it to be the burden of the other guy....and Rome burns.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Also meant to say yes that is a perfect example of "looking for a free ride on the coattails of others"

That is what I have been saying all along when it comes to paying down the Federal, shared deficit...there is no shared sacrifice.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Flat tax.

No one rides coattails.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

That may be a strategy going forward but it does absolutely nothing to get you out of the mess you are in with the National debt.

That's what everyone seems to want to ignore. How are you going to pay down the debt? It would have to be one heck of a high flat tax!


 o
RE: Romney Economics

The real issue is that the huge National debt was built in large part by giving people something for nothing and that includes the unfunded Bush Era tax cuts as well as exploding costs on entitlement programmes.

The unfunded tax-cuts are those very entitlement programs. Tax cuts entitlements + two "wars", not foodstamps and school meals, are to blame.

Food stamps and school meals just don't cut it.

There is no "both sides do it". Whatsoever.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

The debt should be paid down with the exact same mechanism that paid for WWII, highly progressive tax increases, not just on "earned income" but also on investment income.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Maddie, the entitlement programmes I am referring to are Medicare, SS and Medicaid not food stamps and school meals. Those are small potatoes compared and cutting them won't even take care of one days interest on the debt.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Not that we are in tune or anything...

But chase is right. This is yet another "both sides do it" situation. No side is innocent.

And the federal debt IS a big problem. Contrary to Mr. Cheney's belief that deficits don't matter, the truth is that they do. Every bit of deficit adds to the debt. Every bit of debt adds to the interest being paid. Every penny of interest paid is tax money that is NOT being spent on things like...social programs.

Know how much was spent on interest on the federal debt alone in the USA last fiscal year? $454 billion. That could have paid for a lot of doctors visits, or a lot of new nursing home spaces, or free daycare for a heck of a lot of working moms, or a lot of teacher's salaries.

But everyone wants their ten bucks, and politicians (yes, both sides) have their interests to protect and thus will tell you that deficit spending is a good thing... when it suits their interest.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Flat tax.

No one rides coattails.

No loopholes. Taxes paid on ALL income - earned and unearned - whether in the US or abroad. No way of hiding income. Hmmmm.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Sun, Jul 15, 12 at 10:03

Flat tax.

No one rides coattails.

No loopholes. Taxes paid on ALL income - earned and unearned - whether in the US or abroad. No way of hiding income. Hmmmm.

*

Yes.

EVERYONE.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Flat tax is regressive and puts a disproportional burden on low income people if you make the following assumptions:

- it costs 15,000 for housing, utilities and insurance
- it costs 8,000 for food for family of four
- it costs 2,000 for clothing
- it costs 8,000 for transportation
- save 5,000 for retirement and college
- it costs 2,000 for medical expenses

Ten percent flat tax - a family making $50,000 pays $5,000. That can make a real difference to their ability to pay living expenses. The above estimate leaves just 5,000 for unexpected expenses or extra money to save for future emergencies or gifts/birthdays.

A family making $200,000 pays $20,000. A much easier burden for them given they still have $180,000 to live on unlike the other family that had $45,000 left to live on and which day to day expenses consume almost entirely.

And those are reasonably estimated expenses - imagine if the same family lived in New York or California.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

I'm not a tax expert but a flat tax, with no loopholes, no deductions no credits, that actually ensured a balanced budget AND reduced the deficit would have to be set very high as a percent to income.

In fact I venture that most people would end up paying more in taxes than they currently do. Putting aside whether a flat tax is right or wrong, if it would mean a tax increase for you Demi would you still be in favour of it? I'm not trying to catch you I'm just curious if you strongly believe a flat tax is the way to go , would you be willing to pay more in taxes to have it?


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Good incentive to make more money or move.

;)


 o
RE: Romney Economics

.....and your answer is????


 o
RE: Romney Economics

I wonder if a flat tax on ALL income, with no deductions for anything and no differentiation in the kind of income would level the playing field? A lot of people are rich because they have figured out how to avoid taxes. If they can no longer avoid taxes would they still be as rich? Maybe it would bring the rich, the poor and the middle class more in line with each other. Imagine if you couldn't take a deduction for feeding your horse.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

jz, the problem is that the tax rate would likely have to be quite high which is the basis of my question to Demi, one she apparently isn't going to answer but that's OK....would those who favour a flat tax, no deductions etc., would they still support it if it meant their taxes went up?


 o
RE: Romney Economics

It would be kind of silly to give you a flat yes, chase--but. I doubt it would go up from where it is now, so yeah.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

But that is the point Elvis, I think it could go up quite a bit if all deductions, loopholes etc were eliminated AND revenue was used to pay down the deficit.

So do you favour a flat tax with NO deductions, credits loopholes etc if in fact that means your taxes would go up?


 o
RE: Romney Economics

No deductions and no exemptions either. Just a flat tax on ALL income, earned and unearned, investments, business income, etc.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

What about my Roth IRA? That is supposed to be tax-free earnings!


 o
RE: Romney Economics

In the garbage!!!! LOL


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Well, let's see, Jerzee. Are we talking totally about flat tax on gross earned (wages or in-kind) income, invest as you please, no tax on profits from investments? Not that I have much, but say I have a retirement fund. Flat tax when I collect? Or do I pay tax now, and none when I collect?

And say I cut my 40 into 8 lots and sell all but one (for me). Flat tax on that?

Or I win the lottery. Do I pay a flat tax on my gazzilion millions?

If we're talking flat tax on wages as described above income, I'm probably for it, as long as they leave my "stuff" alone. After all, I paid tax on it once, when I earned it.

Does any of that make sense? ;-)


 o
RE: Romney Economics

In fact I venture that most people would end up paying more in taxes than they currently do. Putting aside whether a flat tax is right or wrong, if it would mean a tax increase for you Demi would you still be in favour of it? I'm not trying to catch you I'm just curious if you strongly believe a flat tax is the way to go , would you be willing to pay more in taxes to have it?

*

I AM going to answer you, I've been busy.
I do have a life! ;)
Catching another much needed rainstorm so I had to come inside.

We posted at the same time, I think 10:40, Chase.

Yes, I would be willing to pay more IF everyone paid exactly the rate.

Although I prefer that EVERYONE pay federal tax, even if it's a pittance, I liked Steve Forbe's plan, which taxed I think at 17%, but only after $36,000 so that would leave people earning that amount or lower paying no taxes.

There are all sorts of variations on a "flat tax" with certain exemptions, and I would be amenable to that.

I think everyone should pay, even if it's $10 a year.

That aside, even a 20% or 25% would work for me.

Would everyone here be amenable to a 25% tax rate on all of your income?

We're going to need it to fund all those wonderful benefits so many of you want.

We do not NEED to and we should NOT be spending the money on the federal level that we are. It's ridiculous and unsustainable.

Cut costs, cut unnecessary programs and military spending, cut waste and fraud, then give us a flat tax.

I sincerely doubt that any type of flat tax would have me paying more than I already do, though.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

The model we are referring to is the model Demi subscribes to. A flat tax for all citizens on all income, both earned and unearned, no deductions, no credits, no loopholes.

It's not a bad model but I suspect there would be a ton of "yah but" not on this income!


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Would all the accountants have to find a new career?


 o
RE: Romney Economics

They can count beans.

Just kidding.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Aaxel at tax would only be fare by putting an end to tax free bonds, interest, annuities dividends which are incomes. Then the government has to play catch me if you can for all the offshored income producing accounts& investments.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

There's already a lot of huffing and puffing going on in countries that are offshoring and using as investment money all the cash Americans are trying to hide using the lax laws elsewhere that new tax laws are trying to prohibit. I recently read an article about banks in Indonesia and other nations that were either cooperating with the US, turning down US investors... or reporting them to the US government or IRS.


 o
RE: Romney Economics

Interesting article how while CEOs say that states with small government are "best for business":

America's CEOs consider: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Indiana the Five Best for Business States (BfB); and Michigan, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and California the Five Worst for Business States (WfB).

They often don't choose to locate their businesses there or live there.

CEOs, paradoxically, prefer to live and work in the high tax, heavily-regulated WfB. Of the Fortune 500 companies, 165 are headquartered in the WfB, while only about 100 are headquartered in the BfB. Among America's 50 fastest growing corporations, about twice as many have headquarters in the WfB, as in the BfB. Even CEO Romney selected Massachusetts (ranked 47th on the survey) for Bain Capital's headquarters, and it's where he's lived (on and off) for the last 30ish years.

Why is that?

The State Human Development Index ranks American states on well-being and opportunity for their residents (rank 1 is best). On this Index, the WfB are better places to live (average rank 13) compared to the BfB (average rank 36). Metrics such as: household income, life expectancy, infant mortality, and educational opportunity demonstrate that the BfB -- are worse for people.

WfB median household incomes are much higher ($57,000 in the WfB vs. $47,000 in the BfB). Further, people live longer and have lower infant mortality rates in the WfB, compared to the BfB. The WfB average rank (rank 1 is best) is 14 for life expectancy and 15 for infant mortality, while comparable BfB ranks are respectively 31 and 36. In highway fatalities, WfB are safer (average rank 8) compared to BfB (average rank 31).

In higher education, the WfB (as a percent of their college-age population) graduate 50 percent more students with advanced degrees than the BfB. Also, the WfB have 23 of our nation's top universities, compared to the BfB's four.

Mitt Romney's shibboleth that shrinking government helps the American people -- isn't based on any rational analysis of costs and benefits. Government isn't a parasite destroying the American economy. Government is the provider of public goods (infrastructure, education, police, safety standards, etc.) that the private sector can't or won't provide. If citizens select lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation, they'll get: less infrastructure, fewer police, teachers and inspectors, resulting in worse outcomes.

This isn't a universal defense of every government employee or program. Nor am I claiming that bigger government is always better government. Government programs should be evaluated, and terminated (or restructured), if they aren't efficiently serving taxpayer needs.

So what does that mean when it comes to what politicians like Romney say about "what is best"?

CEO Romney's actions, in selecting Massachusetts as his base, suggest he understands the importance of government in making America a better place. But, Politician Romney's statements suggest otherwise.

Which Romney are we supposed to evaluate for president?

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here