Mitt Romney drumming up money with the well-heeled

[sd'sker]

Just for fun let's say whoever gets elected decides to tax the rich 90% and we find out afterwards we are still screwed trying to get out of this debt. What's the next step?

we live in a world where people pay fair taxes.

 

What is fair in your eyes?

 

I read other husker boards(but only post here) and you remind me of a poster from that site.. Do you post on that site as well?

i'm a one board type-a-guy.

[sd'sker]

Would anyone care to argue that cutting taxes actually increases revenue by the government? And that most generally our economy rebounds best when given said tax cuts during a recession.

whose taxes?

[knapplc]

Would anyone care to argue that cutting taxes actually increases revenue by the government? And that most generally our economy rebounds best when given said tax cuts during a recession.

Are you asking if that's true or are you saying it's true? I can't tell by the way you word this.

 

This chart seems to indicate that tax cuts do not increase revenue, but increase the deficit.

 

 

SOURCE

[sd'sker]

Because quite obviously if we tax the rich the debt would decrease. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it's still a drop more than we had before.

 

 

 

 

The argument against closing the tax freebie and loophole entitlements the rich receive is that the whole system is broken, so fixing this small problem won't help much. That's a piss-poor argument, considering how the Right Wingers spend so much time crying about the entitlements given to the very poor. It's OK to give tax entitlements to the rich, but not food and shelter to the poor. The argument makes zero sense.

exactly. 'taxing the rich will not fix everything, so is is stupid' is not a very compelling argument. the point is, and romney knows it, if you tax the rich at fairer rates and close loopholes, they will still do fine and spend the same. if you relieve the burden on the lower classes (more tax credits, breaks, deductions, healthcare for the middle class; job training, affordable housing, etc. for the lower class), then they will have more money to spend and tax revenue will increase. also, with job training and increased investments in developing industries that stay on american soil, we increase our exports and bring more money here, also helping the deficit.

[Ziggy]

Would anyone care to argue that cutting taxes actually increases revenue by the government? And that most generally our economy rebounds best when given said tax cuts during a recession.

Are you asking if that's true or are you saying it's true? I can't tell by the way you word this.

 

This chart seems to indicate that tax cuts do not increase revenue, but increase the deficit.

 

SOURCE

 

Cute but that chart is outdated, and from a poor source. I can come up something better that shows actual revenue numbers. Not a graph with projections.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[knapplc]

the point is, and romney knows it, if you tax the rich at fairer rates and close loopholes, they will still do fine and spend the same.

 

Gotta disagree with you there. Mitt thinks things will magically get better if he's elected president, and stay bad or get worse if Obama is reelected:

 

 

 

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:

 

They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

 

From the link in the OP.

[knapplc]

Would anyone care to argue that cutting taxes actually increases revenue by the government? And that most generally our economy rebounds best when given said tax cuts during a recession.

Are you asking if that's true or are you saying it's true? I can't tell by the way you word this.

 

This chart seems to indicate that tax cuts do not increase revenue, but increase the deficit.

 

SOURCE

 

Cute but that chart is outdated, and from a poor source. I can come up something better that shows actual revenue numbers. Not a graph with projections.

http://www.taxpolicy...t.cfm?Docid=200

 

Errrrr.... it only has a few years of projections. The vast majority of data in that chart is historic.

 

So what are you seeing in these numbers? What's your conclusion?

[sd'sker]

the point is, and romney knows it, if you tax the rich at fairer rates and close loopholes, they will still do fine and spend the same.

 

Gotta disagree with you there. Mitt thinks things will magically get better if he's elected president, and stay bad or get worse if Obama is reelected:

 

 

 

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:

 

They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

 

From the link in the OP.

i was mistaken. i thought i saw a quote where he mentioned how the rich will be fine regardless of the president and then segued into talking about the 5-7% he has to convince to come over and vote for him. i could not find it though, mea culpa. he still probably does know it, though.

[Ziggy]

Would anyone care to argue that cutting taxes actually increases revenue by the government? And that most generally our economy rebounds best when given said tax cuts during a recession.

Are you asking if that's true or are you saying it's true? I can't tell by the way you word this.

 

This chart seems to indicate that tax cuts do not increase revenue, but increase the deficit.

 

SOURCE

 

Cute but that chart is outdated, and from a poor source. I can come up something better that shows actual revenue numbers. Not a graph with projections.

http://www.taxpolicy...t.cfm?Docid=200

 

Errrrr.... it only has a few years of projections. The vast majority of data in that chart is historic.

 

So what are you seeing in these numbers? What's your conclusion?

 

Errr....the projection on that chart starts 2005 maybe middle of 2004, that's not a few years, that's about 8 years. My conclusion, is our economy and revenue is generally going up. The problem is our spending has far outpaced our revenue. Two wars don't help, nor 9/11, or the 2008 bank meltdown. But failing to deal with the side of the equation most out of balance on that chart is blindly following what one political party says.

[knapplc]

Errr....the projection on that chart starts 2005 maybe middle of 2004, that's not a few years, that's about 8 years. My conclusion, is our economy and revenue is generally going up. The problem is our spending has far outpaced our revenue. Two wars don't help, nor 9/11, or the 2008 bank meltdown. But failing to deal with the side of the equation most out of balance on that chart is blindly following what one political party says.

 

There are 40 years of historical data on that chart. Those 40 years of data, which include wars, terrorist attacks and bank meltdowns, show that tax cuts do not increase revenue, they increase the deficit. Providing data for another eight years doesn't erase the historical data in that chart. The critical parts of that chart are the 1993 tax increase and the 2001 tax cuts.

[BigRedBuster]

I just love yellow journalism. Is this same person going to go into a closed door dinner with Dem donors and video tape what Obama says? Do you honestly think that what he says is nice and lovely???? Really???

 

Now, what he said is harsh and probably could have been worded differently.

 

HOWEVER, I agree with the general point. We have too many people who depend on the government. I am shocked anyone would claim otherwise. AND, I also agree that someone depending on the government is going to vote for who ever guarantees that check to keep coming.

Someone said that a large number of these people are retirees. True. But, a big problem we have is the social security system. It is going to go broke. Don't you think that if we take people out of the SS system that don't NEED the check would be a good thing? Yes, I'm talking about rich people who don't NEED the check.

 

We have too many people on the government pay check and the Dems have done a WONDERFUL job of buying all those votes by claiming the Republicans want to take away the pay check. Hmmm....harsh reality, to a certain extent we do unless you really need it.

 

For which, he stated that he is for the safety net for the people who really need it.

It's so easy for yellow journalists to make hay out of emotions from people who don't want to give up the pay check from the government.

[sd'sker]

I just love yellow journalism. Is this same person going to go into a closed door dinner with Dem donors and video tape what Obama says? Do you honestly think that what he says is nice and lovely???? Really???

 

Now, what he said is harsh and probably could have been worded differently.

 

HOWEVER, I agree with the general point. We have too many people who depend on the government. I am shocked anyone would claim otherwise. AND, I also agree that someone depending on the government is going to vote for who ever guarantees that check to keep coming.

Someone said that a large number of these people are retirees. True. But, a big problem we have is the social security system. It is going to go broke. Don't you think that if we take people out of the SS system that don't NEED the check would be a good thing? Yes, I'm talking about rich people who don't NEED the check.

 

We have too many people on the government pay check and the Dems have done a WONDERFUL job of buying all those votes by claiming the Republicans want to take away the pay check. Hmmm....harsh reality, to a certain extent we do unless you really need it.

 

For which, he stated that he is for the safety net for the people who really need it.

It's so easy for yellow journalists to make hay out of emotions from people who don't want to give up the pay check from the government.

Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.^[1]

 

that was a presentation of mitt's words given by mitt.

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

third, most of those 47% are not dependent on the gov't, they just do not pay federal income tax. he is mixing two very disparate groups.

 

fourth, do you understand how social security works? although i agree it should be need based and there should be no threshold on taxable income; if you only receive money from social security, you are not dependent on the gov't. you are dependent on a gov't mandated retirement system. that is their money, they paid it in with every paycheck. so to say those people are 'dependent' on the gov't is a gross misrepresentation of the system and demonstrates how out of touch romney, and anyone who agrees, truly is.

 

fifth, what exactly do you want to take away? who exactly are those 'too many on the government pay check'? please, with links.

[carlfense]

I just love yellow journalism. Is this same person going to go into a closed door dinner with Dem donors and video tape what Obama says? Do you honestly think that what he says is nice and lovely???? Really???

Your first reaction is that you think Obama probably said something similar? Really? Weak.

 

I am shocked anyone would claim otherwise. AND, I also agree that someone depending on the government is going to vote for who ever guarantees that check to keep coming.

Are you shocked that the GOP presidential candidate said that it's not his job to worry about 47% of American citizens? To me . . . that's a bit more shocking.

 

Someone said that a large number of these people are retirees. True. But, a big problem we have is the social security system. It is going to go broke. Don't you think that if we take people out of the SS system that don't NEED the check would be a good thing? Yes, I'm talking about rich people who don't NEED the check.

Guess which demographic Romney is doing particularly well with? 65+. He's buying the votes of people who are living off the government.

 

We have too many people on the government pay check and the Dems have done a WONDERFUL job of buying all those votes by claiming the Republicans want to take away the pay check. Hmmm....harsh reality, to a certain extent we do unless you really need it.

 

For which, he stated that he is for the safety net for the people who really need it.

It's so easy for yellow journalists to make hay out of emotions from people who don't want to give up the pay check from the government.

Check the map posted previously. The majority of the states with the lowest percentages of taxpayers are Republican strongholds.

[carlfense]

One last thing, no amount of taxing the rich will make the slightest change in the nation debt, PERIOD.

Despite the emphatic "PERIOD" . . . your statement is false.

Really? How so?

Mathematics.

[carlfense]

And here's another. Mitt's not doing damage-control, he's doubling down:

 

 

Romney Stands By Comments In Video

 

COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.

 

In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.

 

Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.

 

Mitt must be a Neil Young fan - "It's better to burn out than to fade away."

Mitt has no choice. He must double down. This isn't just some off the cuff gaffe by him . . . this is one of the core beliefs of his base. He can't run from it. Expect to hear a chorus of conservative mouthpieces calling for Romney to go on the offensive with this message. The people in the echo chamber truly don't understand how terrible their message sounds to the average middle of the road voter.