Every thing a president wants to do goes through congress. No president is king and has to have congress work out the details. This was true for Obama as well, and most of us know this. However, we do need to what he wants done. He can lay out details of what he believes should be done. Most of what few details he mentions so far suggests he really plans on doing very little.
Thanks for the clarification.
I really have to disagree with your statement that I highlighted. When I read his stated aims, I can see that he wants to do a lot. If you haven't already checked out his five-point plan...you should.
Let me give you an example,when pressed on details, he says he'll continue to allow home mortage deductions or charitable donantions, I can't conclude he's serious.
Romney gets specific on tax plan – The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer - CNN.com Blogs
Thanks for the clarification.
I really have to disagree with your statement that I highlighted. When I read his stated aims, I can see that he wants to do a lot. If you haven't already checked out his five-point plan...you should.
Additionally, Romney will have the challenge of making all his various tax and budget promises add up. His basic problem is that he has made three key promises that are in conflict with each other. He has said he will cut statutory tax rates by 20 percent across the board, that he will eliminate enough tax deductions to keep total revenues the same as they would otherwise be, and he will maintain the existing distribution of taxation among income classes.
A number of economists have pointed out that all three of these promises cannot be kept simultaneously. The core problem is that even if every single deduction is eliminated for those making more than $200,000, they will still get a large net tax cut. Therefore, Romney will either have to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or blow a hole in the deficit.
When one of Romney’s economic advisers, Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, suggested that if the numbers don’t add up then Romney would scale back his tax cut for the rich. Romney immediately denied he would do any such thing.
There are two reasons for not presenting too much detail (or nearly any):
1. They truly plan on closing real loopholes and know that such will not play well. This is unlikely as it would have political fallout. I would praise such an action but there is good reason to doubt it.
2. There is no real plan to close anything significant enough to make a dent and thus will only really make things easier on the wealthy. They will pass the buck and then blame others when nothing happens. This is a time worn tactic that both parties have learned how to use expertly.
Why should Romney or Ryan give the details when we all know that you liberals will complain about the specifics of their plan?
It's called "Economic Growth" libs
I understand that is something you people aren't familiar with. We've all been experiencing the lack of it as a result of your economic policies over the last 4 years.
Woah! Even Fox News anchorman Chris Wallace, is unwilling to accept the prevarications and diversions being offered up by the Romney campaign. Wallace challenged Gillespie on the Romney/Ryan claim that “six different studies have said this is entirely doable,” that you can lower taxes by cutting deductions, without increasing the deficit. Only one of the six actually qualifies as a "study", the others being blog posts and op ed pieces. Wallace noted these facts.
Others in the media have written of the "non-true" claims being made by the Romney people about the so-called tax plans being offered up.
Kennedy's cuts followed the highest period of taxation in U.S. history in order to pay down a substantial chunk of the deficit incurred from WW2, and would bear little to no resemblance to the cuts being proposed currently which would prospectively lower rates on those already paying historically low figures. Also, the U.S. economy at the time was at the time the de facto economic power in the modernized world and held little fear that growth would fail to compensate for the revenue sacrificed. All in all a comparison that holds little value whatsoever.Why don't Democrats like any of this? John F. Kennedy (D) reduced taxes and it stimulated the economy and in turn the government took in more money.
Kennedy's cuts followed the highest period of taxation in U.S. history in order to pay down a substantial chunk of the deficit incurred from WW2, and would bear little to no resemblance to the cuts being proposed currently which would prospectively lower rates on those already paying historically low figures. Also, the U.S. economy at the time was at the time the de facto economic power in the modernized world and held little fear that growth would fail to compensate for the revenue sacrificed. All in all a comparison that holds little value whatsoever.
Sheesh, rates under Reagan were higher than those of present day for all but one year. Tax rates quite simply aren't the clog in the pipes in this instance.The rates should be put back to those rates for economic growth (since they have been increased since the Reagan years). That will expand the economic pie and everyone will benefit.
Sheesh, rates under Reagan were higher than those of present day for all but one year. Tax rates quite simply aren't the clog in the pipes in this instance.
I find it incredibly ironic that 6 monnths ago, Romney wasn't consefvative enough. Now he's the Messiah.
The rates were brought down throughout his Presidency and caused amazing economic growth for several years. And the levels I would like to see them at today are where they were at the end of his time in office.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.”
So tripling the national deficit as a direct result of cutting taxes is OK?
That "amazing economic growth" still allowed the national deficit to swell and yet even greater reductions in taxes as proposed by Romney are supposed to be so fantastic, economic growth will compensate for the tax cuts - somehow.
When Reagan left office many Republicans thought he had been a failure
Reagan and Gingrich
“Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion.
Sounds like a Dem complaint during the Bush years - don't it? Those are Ron Paul's words in a letter announcing that he was leaving the Republican Party in 1987 because of Reagan's economic policies
So...I guess when you said this: "No president is king and has to have congress work out the details." You weren't serious...because here you are getting on him about details.
Welcome to the ranks of the two-faced.
No. What I said, I meant. No president is king. We know he will have to depend on congress. But like I said, he owes it to voters to spell out how he wants to do it. Without doing that, it allows him to pass the buck no matter what congress does. He has to be able to show this is what I called for, this is what I pushed for, and this is what they did. Take Obama and Gitmo for example. Obama did call for it to be closed. It was congress who let him down. I would feel the same way concerning Romney if he called for something, push and congress let him down. However, if he merely pass it on to them, with no clear expectation, well, that is different.
Well...I'm glad you brought Obama into this.
So, let me ask you...did anyone ask Obama for details about Gitmo? Did anyone ask him exactly how he would go about closing it down? Did anyone question whether it was even possible to do it? Or was he elected because "he wanted to close it down"? With Romney, now, we know what he wants to do...but unlike with Obama, y'all want all the details. Even though, like Obama, those details rest with Congress.
You see...now we are getting back to that "two-faced" thing.
Yeah, they did. And there was talk of moving them to US prisons and trying them. We knew he would focus on Afghanistan, follow the Iraqi timeline for withdrawal, and call torture torture.
There is nothing two faced here. Candidates are always asked for details and they always avoid as much as possible. We should demand better. We should know what they will TRY to do.
And you know what Romney will try to do. He's told you many times...in many ways.
But hey...you go right ahead and nitpick for details...question every last one of them. But as long as you give Obama a pass...as long as you accept what he says without the nitpicking...you still have that two-faced thing going on.
No, he actually hasn't. He's suggested something that has math issues. As the math doesn't work, we need some kind of explanation, how he sees it working. That clarification would help voters decide whether or not they agree that it is workable. it's not nitpicking. It's trying to understand his vision.
President Obama will eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs overseas and instead provide incentives for companies that create jobs in America
Invested $2 billion in community colleges and proposed forging new partnerships between community colleges and employers to train 2 million workers for jobs that already exist
Make tax cuts for the middle class permanent – under the President, the average American family saved $3600 in taxes over the past four years
Double exports and create one million new manufacturing jobs
Jobs & the economy — Barack Obama
No, he actually hasn't. He's suggested something that has math issues. As the math doesn't work, we need some kind of explanation, how he sees it working. That clarification would help voters decide whether or not they agree that it is workable. it's not nitpicking. It's trying to understand his vision.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?