Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
In Chandler, Arizona today, Governor Romney announced an initiative to lower individual rates on every American by 20 percent. Contrasting his approach with President Obama's, Romney said, "Raising taxes will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us." Excellent contrast.
Just in the event we become too enthusiastic, Romney tempered his initiative by saying he would limit allowable deductions and exemptions for high income earners, "…so that we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they're paying or more." Thus does the premise of the left become the foundation for this Republican yet again. And in case you didn't understand that he prefers to divide fairness according to class, he added, "We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because it's middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy."
Why the division? Why the picking and choosing which class gets more relief? Why buy into the premise of the progressive thereby giving it, and by extension Obama, undeserved legitimacy? Why set yourself up to have your words thrown back at you in the general when you will hear Obama say, "Governor, you yourself agreed with me that the top 1% percent needs to pay '…the current share or more.'" Why does this gentleman insist on this kind of thing?
As I've said before, if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him, but I may need a Tylenol subsidy before it's all said and done. In the meantime, can someone get this guy a few Milton Friedman videos?
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
This is the guy Rob and James just endorsed in the latest podcast? Well, not endorse exactly, but that other religious guy is too freaky.
I'm with Pat Buchanan - it's the Roman Empire all over again, and Mr Obama is fiddling into a second term.
Edited on February 22, 2012 at 10:23pmJul '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
He didn't.
Aug '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Mitt Romney has been running, thus far, solely on fiscal bona fides. And yet he is singularly tone deaf when it comes to articulating fiscal conservatism.
May '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
#17, yes, I saw that afterwards. Yes, if you just cut spending without more, you will enter into the realm of European-like stagnation. You need to fix private sector tax policy in tandem with cutting spending. This is not really a point of debate.
Edited on February 22, 2012 at 10:24pmDec '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Nonsense!
May '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Why? Because in a country where demagoguery is the staple weapon of the opponents who own the bully pulpit and the microphone, if you announce any kind of tax relief on a flat rate basis, you have to proactively defend yourself against the "tax breaks for the rich" meme.
It is not that hard, folks. This is no time to drown ourselves out looking for perfect philosophy- the core message is that 1) you do not make tax rates more progressive, and 2) removing deductions is the way to move toward broader reform.
All of us understand that the issue is marginal tax rates, not taxes.
The term "the 1%" needs to be attacked away from the electoral hustings- especially by a richrichrich person. Why? Because when those around the median annual income of $48k are suffering from Obama's food and energy inflation, the 1% income level is close to $200k per year. If Mr. Gotrocks proposed a reform that lowered his own taxes that would be the only point in the public narrative for the next month.
Every required entitlement reform- SS, Medicare, etc.- hits the lower middle class; don't pour $5 gasoline on the pyre.
May '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Romney is simply saying that unless you improve fiscal policy at the same time, just cutting government is not going to make things better. This is not really controversial.
Quit with the out-of-context statements.
Aug '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Make sense not to nominate Mr. Gotrocks, then.
Feb '12
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
I guess it's out of line for me to want a Presidential nominee who will actually level with the American people and tell the truth: Our national debt and our trillions of unfunded future liabilities are so huge and severe, that ALL of us will have to pay a percent or two higher in taxes AND we will have to cut the size of government spending across the board. If we don't actually do the tough measures, there is NO WAY we will ever prevent ourselves from becoming Greece.
May '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
DrewInWisconsin
Make sense not to nominate Mr. Gotrocks, then. · 42 minutes ago
Only if there were a better alternative. I am for the best candidate; in this race, we have one who is more or less OK, one functional nut, one verbose egotist with no executive capability or "I'm so brilliant" comments verbal governor, and one union-coddling moral scold with no executive experience or social issues verbal governor.
Jul '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
The man cannot even articulate why "the rich" spend their own money more beneficially for society than the government. Or why two $50,000 entry-level manufacturing jobs does more for America than another 150,000 federal bureaucrat position. Romney is more wooden than Bush defending conservative positions.No. Just no. You could draw straws in the exhibit room at CPAC and end up with a better philosophically grounded candidate.
Oct '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Dave Carter
In Chandler, Arizona today, Governor Romney announced an initiative to lower individual rates on every American by 20 percent. Contrasting his approach with President Obama's, Romney said,"Raising taxes will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us." Excellent contrast.
Just in the event we become too enthusiastic, Romney tempered his initiative by saying he would limit allowable deductions and exemptions for high income earners,"…so that we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they're paying or more." Thus does the premise of the left become the foundation for this Republican yet again. And in case you didn't understand that he prefers to divide fairness according to class, he added,"We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because it's middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy."
romney said he won't raise taxes on the 1%. but he will eliminate loopholes, which is fine with me.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 4:11amDec '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Unless this was in his earlier 59-point economic plan, I suspect this was a calculated response to his "I'm not concerned about the poor" misstatement a few weeks back. Hoping to either balance or cancel it out.
Oct '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Of course tax cuts cause deficits. They don't have too, but you know how politicians love handing out free goodies via deductions and credits and whatnot.
C. U. Douglas
Joseph Eagar: Dave, it's because the independents buy this argument. And also because Romneyisn't proposing to cut taxes(which would be irresponsible beyond all reason), he's planning tolower marginal rateswhile maintaining the same level of revenue.
Keep in mind that Bush-style deficit-financed tax cuts are inherently regressive. Fiscal deficits, by their nature, lead to currency appreciation, which kills manufacturing and makes the cost of living rise (either through inflation, or--if the central bank allows the nominal exchange rate to rise--asset price bubbles, as in housing). Any rise in the cost of living falls hardest on the poor, of course, and destroying manufacturing jobs only makes the pain worse.
Besides, true supply-side tax cuts are revenue-neutral. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses was always a Keynesian argument. · 18 minutes ago
I'm not certain if I follow you here. Are you saying tax cuts cause deficits? · 12 hours ago