If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Today's Romney gaffe of the day: "I want to bring the (tax) rates down. By the way, don't be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions"   (dailykos.com) divider line 287
    More: Fail, itemized deduction, Health Care, International, romney, tax plans, taxpayer dollars, Daily Kos, income taxes, tax rates  
•       •       •

3256 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 5:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-26 01:01:37 PM
soyouwanttoknowwhyimsingle.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-26 01:17:04 PM
OMG Subby - exactly! Every time he says that I sit there with a dumbfounded look on my face trying to figure out how that is going to lead to a lower tax bill.

Mitt wants to give tax breaks with one hand, but take away tax deductions with the other.

He really thinks we are stupid, doesn't he?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 01:17:09 PM
That doesn't sound like a gaffe. You could have a revenue neutral change to taxation by eliminating deductions and lowering rates.

It wouldn't do anything about the deficit though and it would screw the middle class because I suspect that the deductions that benefit the middle class are the ones he wants to get rid of, and the maximum bracket is the one he wants to cut.
 
2012-09-26 01:17:28 PM
By the way, don't be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions. But by bringing rates down we will be able to let small businesses keep more of their money so they can hire more people."

1) Which deductions?
2) Businesses hire when they think the need workers to fill demand for their product.
3) If a business doesn't have money to hire, it isn't because of income taxes, because for every $1 they pay to employees, the amount of income they pay income taxes on is reduced by $1.
 
2012-09-26 01:18:36 PM
I should add that the first tax deduction I'd like to see removed is the one for dancing horse cures!

It's no gaffe either - Rmoney has repeated that statement enough times now that it is exactly what he means.
 
2012-09-26 01:23:04 PM
Non story. Democrat plant.
 
2012-09-26 01:40:15 PM

vpb: That doesn't sound like a gaffe. You could have a revenue neutral change to taxation by eliminating deductions and lowering rates.

It wouldn't do anything about the deficit though and it would screw the middle class because I suspect that the deductions that benefit the middle class are the ones he wants to get rid of, and the maximum bracket is the one he wants to cut.


Revenue neutral changes to stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit.

Makes sense to me. The angel is in the policy I guess because this would be miraculous if it works.
 
2012-09-26 01:41:55 PM

impaler: 1) Which deductions?


Mortgage interest deductions for people with incomes from $100K to $250K. That's the popular speculation anyways (based on previous comments from Mitt). With the housing marking starting to make a come back this should help put it back in the toilet.
 
2012-09-26 02:00:07 PM

mrshowrules: Revenue neutral changes to stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit.

Makes sense to me. The angel is in the policy I guess because this would be miraculous if it works.


Well it would certainly encourage people to buy homes.
 
2012-09-26 02:20:14 PM
Nobody needs the mortgage interest deduction anyway, because most people just pay cash for their homes. Don't they, Mitt?
 
2012-09-26 02:20:31 PM

mrshowrules: impaler: 1) Which deductions?

Mortgage interest deductions for people with incomes from $100K to $250K. That's the popular speculation anyways (based on previous comments from Mitt). With the housing marking starting to make a come back this should help put it back in the toilet.


Holy crap - I would be LIVID. That's about the only deduction I have. I make too much money to deduct student loan interest, I have no kids, and I am single. Mitt is the devil.
 
2012-09-26 02:40:50 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Nobody needs the mortgage interest deduction anyway, because most people just pay cash for their homes. Don't they, Mitt?


Those are "Little People Problems." Mitt is too good for those.
 
2012-09-26 02:46:21 PM

Three-Fifty: mrshowrules: impaler: 1) Which deductions?

Mortgage interest deductions for people with incomes from $100K to $250K. That's the popular speculation anyways (based on previous comments from Mitt). With the housing marking starting to make a come back this should help put it back in the toilet.

Holy crap - I would be LIVID. That's about the only deduction I have. I make too much money to deduct student loan interest, I have no kids, and I am single. Mitt is the devil.


The key term to google on if you are interested is "high earners". Not rich people but they coined this term for people between $100K to $250 they can make revenue off to cut taxes on the rich and very rich. This is likely the middle-class tax grab Obama was talking about. Anyways, I wouldn't worry about it now because Romney's going to retire from politics in about 6 weeks.
 
2012-09-26 02:53:16 PM

Vodka Zombie: ecmoRandomNumbers: Nobody needs the mortgage interest deduction anyway, because most people just pay cash for their homes. Don't they, Mitt?

Those are "Little People Problems." Mitt is too good for those.


Leona Helmsley would've been the perfect running mate for Mitt.
 
2012-09-26 02:55:42 PM
We've gotten to the point where even Romney saying what he actually believes is considered a gaff because of his etch-a-sketch handling of the campaign.

hahahhahaha
 
2012-09-26 02:56:40 PM
None of the things he says actually make any sense.
 
2012-09-26 02:58:11 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-26 03:00:08 PM
The debates should be fun, although Romney will just deny he said any of this. It will be left for people to fact check the next day, and like many people have time to do that.
 
2012-09-26 03:04:00 PM

vpb: That doesn't sound like a gaffe. You could have a revenue neutral change to taxation by eliminating deductions and lowering rates.

It wouldn't do anything about the deficit though and it would screw the middle class because I suspect that the deductions that benefit the middle class are the ones he wants to get rid of, and the maximum bracket is the one he wants to cut.


That's his usual modus operandi. "Fark the poor and middle class so the rich can get more money."
 
2012-09-26 03:10:16 PM
Not a gaffe - fits right in with the GOP narrative of "We're not going to do anything that could possibly make your life any easier. If your life is hard it is because of all your moral failings."
 
2012-09-26 03:10:47 PM
I'm definitely going to mourn the loss of this well-organized campaign in two months.
 
2012-09-26 03:12:14 PM

Apos: I'm definitely going to mourn the loss of this well-organized campaign in two months.


At the rate it's going now it could be over by next Thursday
 
2012-09-26 03:13:25 PM
See, when people lived in a Company Home their rent was automatically deducted -- no confusing Mortgage Interest Deduction or crippling mortgage payments to distract the working class from the American Dream: not dying in a cave-in.
 
2012-09-26 03:14:31 PM
0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com


"Heh....How about that for specifics,people? I think I know what I'm doing."
 
2012-09-26 03:16:28 PM

Apos: "Heh....How about that for specifics,people? I think I know what I'm doing."


These tiny Romney face pictures really creep me out.
 
2012-09-26 03:16:54 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Apos: I'm definitely going to mourn the loss of this well-organized campaign in two months.

At the rate it's going now it could be over by next Thursday




True.
 
2012-09-26 03:21:02 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Apos: I'm definitely going to mourn the loss of this well-organized campaign in two months.

At the rate it's going now it could be over by next Thursday


I disagree. Because if it's what these people can't figure out, it's how to quit in the middle of a race.

Only if they win do they consider quitting, right Sarah Palin?
 
2012-09-26 03:21:07 PM
One thing that Republicans just don't seem to want to get is if there is no consumer demand for the products and services the company offers, there is not much incentive for them hire workers, no matter how low the tax rate is for them.
 
2012-09-26 03:24:17 PM
Geez, will someone please put this moron out of his misery, proverbially of course. This is painful to watch.
 
2012-09-26 03:25:23 PM
www.inquisitr.com
 
2012-09-26 03:28:17 PM

Slives: One thing that Republicans just don't seem to want to get is if there is no consumer demand for the products and services the company offers, there is not much incentive for them hire workers, no matter how low the tax rate is for them.


I've been told by top men that if rich people have more money they will hire more people to make stuff.
 
2012-09-26 03:30:41 PM

vpb: That doesn't sound like a gaffe. You could have a revenue neutral change to taxation by eliminating deductions and lowering rates.

It wouldn't do anything about the deficit though and it would screw the middle class because I suspect that the deductions that benefit the middle class are the ones he wants to get rid of, and the maximum bracket is the one he wants to cut.


Since he's already said he wants capital gains (that is, the way he personally makes money) taxes lowered to 0%, I'd say you're correct.
 
2012-09-26 03:31:28 PM

Hollie Maea: Non story. Democrat plant.


Overzealous candidate.
 
2012-09-26 03:32:06 PM
Joe Scarborough steps to the plate ...

After Romney gave a shout out to his running mate, Paul Ryan, in Vandalia, Ohio on Tuesday, the crowd got excited and began chanting, "Ryan! Ryan!"

"Wait a second," Romney said, reminding the crowd that he was at the top of the ticket.

"Romney-Ryan, Romney-Ryan," the former governor instructed the crowd, although most of them ignored him. "There we go."

After co-host Mika Brzezinski played the video on Wednesday, Scarborough could only put his hands over his eyes and utter, "Oh, sweet Jesus."


Romney wind up the pitch and ...

No, it's over," Brzezinski pointed out. "It's not going to work. It's too late for that."

"You know what? You don't fix it," Scarborough agreed. "Sadly, I say this about Mitt Romney, he's a great man. He is. He's a great father. He's a great husband. He is a great business man, great turnaround guy. If I had a business anywhere in the world, I'd have him run it. He just - he's a horrible politician. He's one of the worst."


It. Is. Out of here!
 
2012-09-26 03:32:27 PM

mrshowrules: Slives: One thing that Republicans just don't seem to want to get is if there is no consumer demand for the products and services the company offers, there is not much incentive for them hire workers, no matter how low the tax rate is for them.

I've been told by top men that if rich people have more money they will hire more people to make stuff.


TOP. MEN.
 
2012-09-26 03:35:14 PM
Well, he needs a plan that would lower his taxes but remain revenue neutral so he needs to take deductions away from middle class and poor people, the 47% he wants to pay more.
 
2012-09-26 03:35:43 PM
So, I remembered we did this for a day a couple of months ago, and I want to bring it back.

i575.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 03:36:45 PM

James F. Campbell: mrshowrules: Slives: One thing that Republicans just don't seem to want to get is if there is no consumer demand for the products and services the company offers, there is not much incentive for them hire workers, no matter how low the tax rate is for them.

I've been told by top men that if rich people have more money they will hire more people to make stuff.

TOP. MEN.


I stole that from a Farker. Can't remember who.
 
2012-09-26 03:47:58 PM

vpb: That doesn't sound like a gaffe. You could have a revenue neutral change to taxation by eliminating deductions and lowering rates.

It wouldn't do anything about the deficit though and it would screw the middle class because I suspect that the deductions that benefit the middle class are the ones he wants to get rid of, and the maximum bracket is the one he wants to cut.


And of course, he won't say which deductions he will remove, and for whom.

But I'd say the probability is 99.99999999% that the rates will go down for the wealthiest and for international corporations, and deductions will be removed for the middle and lower classes.
 
2012-09-26 03:49:54 PM
I think he was a sentence or two away from letting it slip that he'd go after the mortgage interest deduction, student loan deduction, etc. to fund tax breaks for corporations. That has to be the plan. That's how you pay for lowering the top rates for everyone, while lowering the actual effective rates for Jerb Creators.
 
2012-09-26 03:50:29 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Apos: I'm definitely going to mourn the loss of this well-organized campaign in two months.

At the rate it's going now it could be over by next Thursday


It's actually already over, but like a cockroach with its head missing, the body just hasn't gotten the message.
 
2012-09-26 03:55:49 PM
I actually agree with this approach. Lower tax rates, eliminate deductions.

Everyone should use the 1040 EZ form, there should be no need for anything more.
 
2012-09-26 03:58:59 PM

Three-Fifty: OMG Subby - exactly! Every time he says that I sit there with a dumbfounded look on my face trying to figure out how that is going to lead to a lower tax bill.

Mitt wants to give tax breaks with one hand, but take away tax deductions with the other.

He really thinks we are stupid, doesn't he?


I don't know exactly what deductions he had in mind, but this was pretty much what they did when they overhauled the Tax Code in the 1980's. Yes, there were some very high marginal tax rates, but there were so many ridiculous deductions of one kind or another, that very few people were actually paying taxes at those rates. When the AMT was originally adopted, it was aimed at the top 65 individual taxpayers in the country because they were paying virtually nothing because of all the deductions (yes, that's sixty-five individual people, but they never indexed it for inflation, so now it nets millions of taxpayers. Whoops). So, sure, for some wealthy people, their marginal rates came down but then couldn't deduct country club dues as a business expense because they took a client there for a round of golf, or write off every business lunch, and so on and so forth. It wasn't uncommon to hear people complain in the 1980's that despite taxes being "cut" their own tax liabilities went up. Now, I have no idea what Mitt Romney has in mind specifically with regard to reforming the Tax Code, but that has, in fact, been done before in just that fashion. To call what they did in the 1980's "reform" is probably too weak. I'd say it was a radical overhaul. Probably a necessary one at the time, too.
 
2012-09-26 03:59:28 PM

vernonFL: I actually agree with this approach. Lower tax rates, eliminate deductions.

Everyone should use the 1040 EZ form, there should be no need for anything more.


If it weren't "lower rates for the big earners, pay for that by cutting deductions for the lower earners" it would make sense. What do you think is actually likely from Romney?
 
2012-09-26 04:02:57 PM

vernonFL: I actually agree with this approach. Lower tax rates, eliminate deductions.

Everyone should use the 1040 EZ form, there should be no need for anything more.


That would require all income to be taxed as income. No. Possible. Way. that happens in a Romney presidency.
 
2012-09-26 04:05:41 PM
Also, part of the tax reform plan should include job skills training for accountants and lawyers - since we won't need nearly as many of them anymore since most people and businesses could do their own taxes.
 
2012-09-26 04:15:53 PM

ghare: vernonFL: I actually agree with this approach. Lower tax rates, eliminate deductions.

Everyone should use the 1040 EZ form, there should be no need for anything more.

That would require all income to be taxed as income. No. Possible. Way. that happens in a Romney presidency.


If by that you mean there is no way the tax code will stop distinguishing earned income from passive income, ordinary income from capital gains/losses, then you are almost undoubtedly correct. But that's not happening under Obama's presidency, either. Gary Johnson supports the "Fair Tax," but even if he were to win, Congress and the Senate would never pass that.
 
2012-09-26 04:17:14 PM

mrshowrules: vpb: That doesn't sound like a gaffe. You could have a revenue neutral change to taxation by eliminating deductions and lowering rates.

It wouldn't do anything about the deficit though and it would screw the middle class because I suspect that the deductions that benefit the middle class are the ones he wants to get rid of, and the maximum bracket is the one he wants to cut.

Revenue neutral changes to stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit.

Makes sense to me. The angel is in the policy I guess because this would be miraculous if it works.


Romney must have been the CEO of this bank:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

All we do is make change..... people ask how we make money, and I say....volume.
 
2012-09-26 04:24:31 PM
This guy really has balls speaking about taxes and/or unemployment with a straight face. I mean really, what the fark?
 
2012-09-26 04:24:43 PM
Sounds like he learned taxation in the same school Scott Walker did: Walker did not increase taxes, he just lowered or eliminated deductions so that I made $900 less than last year but owed $950 more net income tax.

Stupid neocons
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report