Romneyism: One Nation Under God With Respect for Every State

[Politico]

Romney is starting to present his severe contrast to Obama now that the general election campaign is officially underway. Here are some excerpts from recent comments made by the Governor:

Romney on his goal to bring us together again:

“We don’t divide America based upon success and wealth and other dimensions of that nature,” he said. “We’re one nation under God. This is a time when people of different backgrounds and different experiences need to come together.”

Romneynomics:

“There are some differences in the campaign coming forward, which is the president, our current president, is intent on raising tax rates, particularly for small business,” Romney said in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

“I want the top income earners to pay the share they’re paying now,” he said. “But I do want to help middle income families find a way to make it easier to make ends meet.”

“I’m going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second home mortgage deduction,” he said, adding that he would also likely eliminate state income and property tax deductions.

Romney’s plan calls for a 20 percent across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. It would lower the top tax rate to 28 percent for individuals from 35 percent now, cut corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the alternative minimum tax. It also would limit deductions, exemptions and credits now available to higher- income Americans.

Speaking in Philadelphia last night, Romney accused Obama of seeking “scapegoats” to distract from a struggling economy. “I will not do as this president is doing, dividing us on every occasion, attacking one American after another, trying to find someone who can by virtue of attacking them divert from his failures economically.”

“The president is going to try and do everything possible to divert from the attention being focused upon his record as president and the failure of his economic policies,” he said. “So he’s going to try to make this campaign about the fact that I’ve been successful, that I’ve made a lot of money.”

Romney on Washington:

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them,” he said, according to NBC News. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”

“The Department of Education I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller,” he said. “I’m not going to get rid of it entirely.”

Romney on social issues:

“I would love the Supreme Court to say, ‘Let’s send this back to the states,’” he said. “Rather than having a federal mandate through Roe v. Wade, let the states again consider this issue state by state.”

Source: http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20120417&id=14995929

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I disagree strongly with his view on social issues- those of us who are pro-life don't want people to just cross state lines to get abortions... that defeats the purpose
(and before people jump on me- I am inf avor of abortions for rape, incest, and health of the mother)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Though Politico- I love the rest of these views :-)

[Politico]

I disagree strongly with his view on social issues- those of us who are pro-life don't want people to just cross state lines to get abortions... that defeats the purpose
(and before people jump on me- I am inf avor of abortions for rape, incest, and health of the mother)

Well, it is a compromise, I suppose, but nothing is perfect. He does not want to offend women and all of that.

But this much you can be sure of: Romney's nominees for the Supreme Court will be conservative to the core with unemotional, uncontroversial temperaments (e.g., John Roberts).

[Democratic Hawk]

Romneynomics:

“There are some differences in the campaign coming forward, which is the president, our current president, is intent on raising tax rates, particularly for small business,” Romney said in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

“I want the top income earners to pay the share they’re paying now,” he said. “But I do want to help middle income families find a way to make it easier to make ends meet.”

“I’m going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second home mortgage deduction,” he said, adding that he would also likely eliminate state income and property tax deductions.

Romney’s plan calls for a 20 percent across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. It would lower the top tax rate to 28 percent for individuals from 35 percent now, cut corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the alternative minimum tax. It also would limit deductions, exemptions and credits now available to higher- income Americans. 

Obviously because the last broadly sweeping tax cuts from a Republican were so successful 

[Politico]

Romneynomics:

“There are some differences in the campaign coming forward, which is the president, our current president, is intent on raising tax rates, particularly for small business,” Romney said in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

“I want the top income earners to pay the share they’re paying now,” he said. “But I do want to help middle income families find a way to make it easier to make ends meet.”

“I’m going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second home mortgage deduction,” he said, adding that he would also likely eliminate state income and property tax deductions.

Romney’s plan calls for a 20 percent across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. It would lower the top tax rate to 28 percent for individuals from 35 percent now, cut corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the alternative minimum tax. It also would limit deductions, exemptions and credits now available to higher- income Americans.  

Obviously because the last broadly sweeping tax cuts from a Republican were so successful  

Do you really have a problem with a twenty percent cut in federal taxes for struggling families, and a streamlining of the tax code for high income earners?

I believe struggling Americans can spend twenty percent of their current tax load better than the Obama Administration can. Struggling families need relief, not more empty chants of "hope and change."

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Remember, friends.



This thing exists.

[Politico]

Remember, friends.



This thing exists.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

- William F. Buckley, Jr.

[Democratic Hawk]

Romneynomics:

“There are some differences in the campaign coming forward, which is the president, our current president, is intent on raising tax rates, particularly for small business,” Romney said in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

“I want the top income earners to pay the share they’re paying now,” he said. “But I do want to help middle income families find a way to make it easier to make ends meet.”

“I’m going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second home mortgage deduction,” he said, adding that he would also likely eliminate state income and property tax deductions.

Romney’s plan calls for a 20 percent across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. It would lower the top tax rate to 28 percent for individuals from 35 percent now, cut corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the alternative minimum tax. It also would limit deductions, exemptions and credits now available to higher- income Americans. 

Obviously because the last broadly sweeping tax cuts from a Republican were so successful 

Do you really have a problem with a twenty percent cut in federal taxes for struggling families, and a streamlining of the tax code for high income earners?

I believe struggling Americans can spend twenty percent of their current tax load better than the Obama Administration can. Struggling families need relief, not more empty chants of "hope and change."

Spare me any pretence that the Reactionary Party cares about struggling families. They opposed the cuts targetted at the middle and working class in the stimulus because there was nothing for the few to whom they are, ideologically, beholden. Where is the money coming from? Will "austerity" pay for them? The federal government is running a deficit of c.$1.4 trillion. You're clearly out to cut taxes for those who aren't struggling 

Why not return to the somewhat more progressive tax system of the Clinton Era (and of those between 1981-2008, he's the only one I rate), while reducing taxes for those who need it?

The bills have got to be paid. The Reaganite David Stockman is withering in his criticism of the GOP's anti-tax jihadism. Why? Its unaffordable. Perhaps had Bush 43 not recklessly cut taxes to begin with while expanding government, talk on raising them at all on anybody may not reared its head

[Politico]

Romneynomics:

“There are some differences in the campaign coming forward, which is the president, our current president, is intent on raising tax rates, particularly for small business,” Romney said in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

“I want the top income earners to pay the share they’re paying now,” he said. “But I do want to help middle income families find a way to make it easier to make ends meet.”

“I’m going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second home mortgage deduction,” he said, adding that he would also likely eliminate state income and property tax deductions.

Romney’s plan calls for a 20 percent across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. It would lower the top tax rate to 28 percent for individuals from 35 percent now, cut corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the alternative minimum tax. It also would limit deductions, exemptions and credits now available to higher- income Americans.  

Obviously because the last broadly sweeping tax cuts from a Republican were so successful  

Do you really have a problem with a twenty percent cut in federal taxes for struggling families, and a streamlining of the tax code for high income earners?

I believe struggling Americans can spend twenty percent of their current tax load better than the Obama Administration can. Struggling families need relief, not more empty chants of "hope and change."

Spare me any pretence that the Reactionary Party cares about struggling families. They opposed the cuts targetted at the middle and working class in the stimulus because there was nothing for the few to whom they are, ideologically, beholden. Where is the money coming from?

The tax code will be streamlined for high income earners, so they see a cut in their tax rate but also a cut in the number of available exemptions. The end result will be a streamlining of their taxes with no increase or decrease in their tax burden. They will continue to pay their current share, and I don't really know anybody who thinks they pay too little in taxes, do you? If you know anybody who really feels that way, perhaps you could suggest they cut a check to their favorite government department(s)?

Tax cuts for those outside the highest brackets will pay for themselves in the medium-run via the multiplier effect, and will be offset in the short-run by moving everything that can be moved from Washington back to the states. States can decide what is worth paying for, and what is worth axing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely not. The proposed tax cut is a 20 percent reduction for all levels, but exemptions are being axed for high income earners, so this is really only benefiting those in the middle and below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A 20 percent reduction in all of the tax rates is still progressive, and benefits those who do need it. The real question is why the Obama Administration thinks it can spend anybody's income better than they can. Do you believe Washington bureaucrats can spend your income better than you can?

[Democratic Hawk]

A 20 percent reduction in all of the tax rates is still progressive, and benefits those who do need it. The real question is why the Obama Administration thinks it can spend anybody's income better than they can. Do you believe Washington bureaucrats can spend your income better than you can?

I don't have some tax aversion, Politico. I can honestly say that I've never cast a ballot on the promise of tax cuts in my life

And, hypothetically, at a time of $1.4 tn deficits, I'd willingly pay more if it meant sunset on the, fiscally, reckless Bush tax cuts

Right now, we've a Council Tax freeze in Durham, but it hasn't stopped us from sending an inflationary increase voluntarily for the past couple of years, certainly at a time when "austerity" is meaning job losses . Death would be more humanitarian fate to wish on your enemy than unemployment in the UK. Indeed, none of my extended family of my parents' generation ever experienced unemployment until the 'Monetarist Recession', so needless to say that well toxified the Conservative Party

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even with loopholes such as taxing long-term capital gains and qualified dividends less than ordinary income eliminated, I fail to see how a 20% cut in the tax rate could be anything other than a net negative on revenue and thus lead to an increase in the deficit.  All the available evidence indicates that we are not at the point on the Laffer curve where a decrease in marginal tax effort leads to an increase in tax revenue.

To balance the budget we need some combination of spending cuts and tax rises.  (I'd be happy with the combination being 100% spending and 0% tax rise, but I don't see such a plan as being politically possible right now.)  Tax cuts are not what we need right now.

[Wisconsin+17]

Has to be massive spending cuts. Spending on domestic stuff is wildly out of control.

[Lincoln Republican]

Taxes on the higher income earners should be raised, considerably.  They have not been paying their fair share for far too long.

Romney should have put that in his program.

[Wisconsin+17]

I don't consider people making 30k as 'higher income earners'.

[Lincoln Republican]

I am talking about people in the highest income levels, the highest income earners, not middle class.

[TomC]

Has to be massive spending cuts. Spending on domestic stuff is wildly out of control.

As is spending on defense.

But "here we go again" with specifics for tax cuts now and later he'll tell us where the spending cuts will be made. That's exactly what got us in the deficit mess we've pretty much been in for the last thirty years, excepting the late 90s.

[Politico]

The spending cuts are guaranteed. He can only say so much before the election because of political constraints. Read between the lines:

"What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states."

In other words, he is going to cut spending nobody wants. He is also, whenever possible, going to let states decide what is worth paying for and what is not. People in California can get what they want (i.e., lots of spending on liberal programs while being taxed to death) while people in Florida get what they want, too (i.e., maintaining their state while not being taxed to death). Everybody outside of the Democratic Party knows that spending cuts are necessary. Shifting most of the decisions onto the states is the only fair way to deal with what gets cut and what does not.

Yes, federal taxes will also be cut for those in the middle and below. Why? Because these people are struggling and could use the relief. The economy still needs an injection, something to increase confidence, and a drastic 20% cut in taxes is better than the Obama alternative, folks. These tax cuts for the middle and below will not bust the deficit when it is coupled with the aforementioned cuts/shifts in spending.

[TomC]

LOL. George Bush said much the same thing. If Mitt can't say what he's cutting specifically, he won't. Unless of course he means that he'll have more "flexibility after the election."

[Politico]

LOL. George Bush said much the same thing. If Mitt can't say what he's cutting specifically, he won't. Unless of course he means that he'll have more "flexibility after the election."

Mitt Romney is no George W. Bush. Unlike George W. Bush, Mitt Romney made his own way, achieved enormous success, instead of riding his father's coattails. Unlike George W. Bush, Mitt Romney knows how to effectively govern. Unlike George W. Bush, Mitt Romney is fit for the presidency.

[TomC]

And on abortion "compromise"- what a joke- most people believe that abortion- at least early in the pregnancy- is a woman's right over her body OR they believe abortion is murder. So, he's going to compromise and say murder is OK so long as it's the state deciding it? Either way you look at it, Romney will barter away people's rights as part of some political compromise? No. Core. Convictions.

[TomC]

LOL. George Bush said much the same thing. If Mitt can't say what he's cutting specifically, he won't. Unless of course he means that he'll have more "flexibility after the election."

Mitt Romney is no George Bush.

So true. George Bush was actually able to make a decision and stick with it regardless of the heat he got for it.

[Politico]

LOL. George Bush said much the same thing. If Mitt can't say what he's cutting specifically, he won't. Unless of course he means that he'll have more "flexibility after the election."

Mitt Romney is no George Bush.

So true. George Bush was actually able to make a decision and stick with it regardless of the heat he got for it.

George W. Bush did not think his decisions through. The man simply rode his father's coattails all the way to the White House. He did not belong anywhere near the Oval Office. He was a national embarrassment.

In contrast, Mitt Romney is successful because he thinks things through. When the facts change, or when someone persuades Mitt that he was wrong, Mitt changes his mind. What do you do, sir?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In contrast, Mitt Romney is successful because he thinks things through. When the facts change, or when someone persuades Mitt that he was wrong, Mitt changes his mind. What do you do, sir?

It certainly is convenient that the "facts" always seem to persuade the man to do what he thinks will be politically popular.  It could lead one to wonder if those "facts" are the popularity of particular positions.

I can't think of any situation in which he has exhibited political leadership, that is I can't think of a single time he has taken a policy position that is not popular and then convinced people that his position is the one that should be followed.  (Other than his policy that Mitt Romney should be the Republican nominee for president, that is.)

[LastVoter]

1) Mr. Romney is only good at one thing firing people. That's his "success" at Bain capital.
2) SLC Olympics are Mr. Anderson's success, not Mr. Romney's.
3) Mr. Romney rejects his successful record as governor of Massachusetts.