All indication are that (1) he paid every penny in taxes that the law
requires, (3) he gave 15% of all he received to charitable
contributions, (3) he provided for his family, and (4) he gave a lot of
thought and effort to obtaining the greatest benefit he could from the
surplus remaining after (1), (2), and (3). And he did all of this
ethically and honestly. To the extent it has any bearing on the
question, it sounds like Romney is the kind of decision-maker we'd want
in our chief executive.
But the important question, again, is what Romney and Obama each propose
to do with OUR money.
Here's one citation. A Google search will give you many more.
Here's part of what it says. Note especially the reduction or elimination
of taxation on investment income, estates, corporate and alternative minimum
tax. Not to mention permanently extending previous tax cuts, said cuts
benefiting the richer folks among us.
"In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has
proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting
individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax
preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual
taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax,
and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in
2010's health reform legislation."
Oh, government can create jobs. Lots of them. Consider the redundant
bureaucracy. Consider public works.
Neither of them are going to do much about the deficit. Nor will anyone
else. What *will* happen is that the dollar - which is now worth a dime -
will become worth a penny or less and the deficit/debt will then be
Depends on where they are. Banks in Canada are "offshore". Romney's are in
offshore tax havens. The main reasons to have money in them are..
1. A deep distrust of our banks, particularly their solvency.
2. To defer taxes or even to create corporations under a nominee and avoid
That's only if you listen to Obama's spin numbers.
Deficit or debt? The deficit is Washington's daily overspending.
Those bastards in D.C. need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud
was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
-- Anaοs Nin
What a bunch of happy horse crap.
All Romney wants to do is reduce taxes on
high end incomes, above $250K, as well as
destroy Medicare and Social Security as
we know it, not reduce the federal deficit.
Republicans have been trying to get rid of
Medicare and Social Security as we know it
since their inception.
(viewable only by wsj online subscribers)
This isn't quite true. Snipping off and disbanding an agency would
remove the deficit immediately, but nobody in D.C. talks of necessary
things like this. The burden would then be only on the snipped middle
income workers, not the class as a whole. This is bad for them, good
for the country.
Condolences. She was an interesting writer.
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
A left wing talking point that borders on a lie. Try this instead:
- EVERYONE wants to minimize their tax burden.
- What is increasing taxes on the middle class is not the lack of what the
rich contribute but the *profligate spending of a government out of control*.
If you think the rich don't pay enough, here's the math:
Now go do a teensy amount of homework. Pretend that Obama (PBUH) gets
what he wants and additional taxes are levied on the rich. Assume Obama
(PBUH) gets everything he's asking for. Total up the imaginary increase
in revenue and see how long it would run the government. HINT: Last I checked
less than half a year and that's at TODAY's interest rates. When rates go
back up, the Federal government is going to be underwater servicing the debt
that Obama (and Bush) created. We cannot tax our way out of Obamanomics.
We have to *grow* our way out and that cannot happen as long as he remains
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
We already have.Bush's TARP was about $1T. Obama added almost another
$5T in self-stimulation. Neither worked. They simply gave the very people
that failed to behave responsibly a get out of jail free card. Among
these include the bankers, the people that bought homes as items of
speculation, and people living far beyond their means.
How much more shall we spend before folks on your side of the political
divide finally admit it does not work?
BTW, what neither your side nor most so-called conservatives get it
that what Obama did was NOT Keynesian. It was far worse. A Keynes
stimulus would have gone directly into the economy in the form of
jobs for the masses. Obama self-stimulation was designed to
benefit his favored oligarchs and low rent voter base but it produces
no jobs of any note outside the wretched public sector. Now Keynes
was wrong on many levels, but Obama's actions are pure political
megalomania trying to get people to like him.
Tim, I have no easy way to check those interesting graphs, showing
consistently more job gains under democratic than republican presidents.
I just know from the job reports that we are a long way off from making
a real dent in unemployment. I retired, but my job has not been filled
(grant problems in the lab, so a in effect a reduction in federal
expenditures, although I fear that the slack I provied has been taken
up). I am happy that the stock market is up as much as it is, also
because my retirement income partly depends on that. OTOH, that rise
has not provided jobs, and I can't understand why not. Productivity has
gone up, I think in part because people work harder and longer for the
same wages and salaries.
In many ways we are much better off now than we realize, and those
graphs show it. I wish I knew how to translate it into more jobs.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.