Mitt Romney's candidacy

ThomasT

Thanks for the comments so far, the link from turbo, and the link and Romney's 59-point plan from Oltz. Maybe some more knowledgeable members can begin to comment on some of the points in Romney's plan. My overall impression is that he's the candidate of the status quo, ie., corporate America (~ business as usual, and no expected marked improvements for the US in general wrt his presidency). I expect to have something to say wrt at least a few of his points as I find time to do some required research and a bit of thinking on it.

Now I'm going to follow Evo's suggestion and start a thread on Santorum.

AlephZero

That's not me - except the 59 point plan reminded me of one of our senior project leaders (a rather dour Scot) whose response given that sort of "shopping list" was usually the same:

If that's the solution, tell me what you think the problem is, in 20 words or less.

Once that question gets a straight answer, a lot of the 59 points are probably headed strainght for the trash.

KingNothing

Some of them are good, some of them just sound stupid.

Obligatory 'lower taxes for the rich' conservative stuff.

Right...have fun with that. It's pretty sad when a politician campaigns to basically undo everything from the guy before him.

I like these.

I'm surprised by this, in a good way.

I like this.

This doesn't really mean anything. These just words on a page, nothing more.


Basically, this is what I gather:
Cut big corporations slack, who needs to worry about the environment, we need to encourage smart people to stay, we should use more locally available energy, never cut military spending. Oh yeah, and Obama's bad.

KingNothing

I give Romney credit for even having a plan. I still can't take any budget balancing discussion seriously that doesn't involve cutting military spending. (Democrat or Republican).

Chi Meson

Evo, you should know by now, that under our Ayn Rand/Tea Party-inspired political framework, you must either be labeled "liberal" or "Real American." There's no "grey," there's only "us" and "wrong."

Oltz already noted that we need a fiscal conservative and social moderate; in the last election, which congressmen were the first to go?

daveb

To add to:

45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks

I see this as a roundabout way of attempting to weaken unions, which, in the wake of Citizens United, makes corporations even more powerful. The unions would have to solicit money from members, who sometimes may not have the financial ability to contribute much or even anything to lobbying efforts, but the corporations could still contribute hundreds of millions to lobbying and still make it financially worthwhile.

turbo

I have been called on this forum a 'Marxist" a "Commie" and worse. I am one of the most fiscally conservative people that I know and I vote split-party tickets in almost every election (unless the stars align to offer decent candidates in one party or the other).

I know many people who need some support from public services (including those that they have paid into for years, including SS and Medicare), and I am dead-set against gutting those programs to avoid increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations. That does not make me a "Marxist commie", despite the claims of the nuts that want to equate taxation with theft.

Rational political discourse has been derailed by FOX, hate-radio, etc, and the people that main-line that crap, IMO. When I was a kid, Margaret Chase Smith was my hero in Congress. Much to my father's chagrin, BTW, since he was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who came up through the Depression (in abject poverty) and idolized FDR. My father left home in his teens and was taken in by a local store-owner who gave him room and board in return for stocking shelves, pricing products, and janitorial work as long as he studied and kept his grades up. Dad quit HS early to join the Airborne to fight in WWII. He still gets kind of teary-eyed when he talks about the owner of that store - giving a kid break in hard times.

ThomasT

Really? That's fantastic. Nobody ever calls me anything.

Totally agree. And I think a lot of legislators agree also.

Agree. Taxation certainly isn't theft. It's the necessary contribution of all people in the US republic to provide the resources for programs that benefit all of us. I understand why the wealthy don't want a progressive tax. They have enough money to not need governmental help. But most people don't. And, insofar as the wealthy got wealthy from the sweat and labor of common folks working for low wages, I don't think that their objection to paying higher taxes is morally defensible.

Obviously. It's not just your opinion.

Oltz

I can not more ardently disagree. My wife is a teacher and can not teach in PA with out being a member of the local, state and Federal Union. Period no questions asked you either pay them or do not work. They then take that money you have no say in giving them and use ~70 for political activites with out any form of input from the "members" that is wrong. What point 45 means is that if your union forces membership (non right to work state) it can not use those "dues" for political purposes. If you have voluntary membership your union can do as it pleases. This applies to teaches mailmen whatever if you do not support the political cause of the union leaders they should not be able to force you to pay for the campaign.

By the same not my wife would happily not be in the union given the option amd she would negotiate to have the same contract as the union but instead of paying dues that she has no control over to an entity we do no agree with most of the causes they support the school could keep that $248 a month.

Union contract - Dues = non union employee

Jimmy Snyder

If you negotiate on your own, you don't have the clout that the union has. You would certainly get a worse contract than the union gets.

mheslep

Most corporatations in the US are not big. I suspect #6
will be quietly opposed by the biggest, most connected corporations (like GE) at the expense of the small. The large corps enjoy deductions and credits reducing their effective tax rates, while the current rate keeps down the new competition.

mheslep

I think there is some consequence to having this in the plan. A theoretical President Romney will quickly be required to publish his budget. His 2013 spending proposal will immediately be placed against 2013 GDP, and if it exceeds 20% he'll have to answer for it.

Oltz

For the record no rational person says we should not have a progressive tax structure. That being said any rational person should be able to tell you what percent of the population should bear what burden of taxes. The US has the largest ratio of tax burden to % wealth controlled out of all developed nations. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...133521,00.html("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile")

I.e in 2009 the top 10% of earners had Adjusted Gross incomes above $112,124.00 all people with incomes above that controlled a total of 43.2% of national AGI but that same group paid 70.5% of the income taxes recieved by the government.

By the way the 1% control 16.9% of AGI and pay 36.7% of taxes this is AGI so it includes cap gains and dividends as well as all deductions. In 2009 the top 1% was incomes above $343,927.00 AGI


The average tax rate for the 1% bracket was 24.01 % versus 18.05 % for the top 10% and 1.85 % for the bottom 50%

In other words the bottom 90% control 56.8% of the wealth and pay 29.5% of the income tax. Some would say that "fair" tax brackets are based on your share of income.

Jack21222

The reason the top 1% and the top 10% pay such a large percentage of the taxes in the country is because they are so fantastically wealthy. Forget making a million dollars a year. There are people making HUNDREDS of millions of dollars a year. They make in one year what most of us can only hope to make in a dozen lifetimes.

This is why "percent of the total national tax" is an irrelevant figure. Even if you had an actual regressive tax, with lower incomes paying a higher percentage, you could still end up with a situation where the top 1% pays FAR MORE than 1% of the taxes.

I haven't verified this number, but I'll take your number at face value, that the top 1% pays on average 24.01% of their income. If the top 1% paid, say, 26% of their income instead, it would have a far smaller effect on them than if you bumped up the bottom 50% to say 3%.

If you support a balanced budget, in my opinion, you must also support higher taxes, particularly on the only group of people who can afford higher taxes. You cannot cut enough spending without causing economic catastrophe to balance the budget. It must come from a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Proposing tax cuts, particularly tax cuts only on the wealthy, while cutting government benefits on the poor, and still not balancing the budget... that's just silly. And that's Romney.

Evo

Not necessarily true. The company my father worked for had union and non-union workers. The non-union workers in the same job titles received more merit raises and benefits since they were not locked into a contract. I was at a company dinner and had this conversation with the company's attorney.

Also, where I worked, there was a very large union, when I started I was an occupational (non-management) worker. I elected not to join the union, but I got the same pay and benefits as the union workers, the company did not discriminate. I did not like the union and refused to limit the amount of work I did. As one union job steward threatened me to stop being so productive, she said that the union had worked very hard to convince management that workers could not do that amount of work and I was hurting them. I hate unions and union mentality.

Oltz

As far as SS and medicare the " pay in" systems I am mostly ok with them forcing people to "save" for retierment and medical expenses who would not normally have enough control to do it themselves. Anyone who says they are somehting different is selling you something. The problem is the pay out to in ratio has become so skewed and the funds have been redirected to the point they are unsustainable. I think any temporary cut in SS payments is rediculous and simply accelerating its collapse.

Most do not complain "much" about these 2 programs except to say they will someday fail and will someday be an enourmous debt. Reform is needed period.

Unemployment, welfare, foodstamps and all of the "entitlement" programs need reform to better target the correct recpients and be made sustainable with propper controls that will keep them from ballooning beyond our capacity to support them. We do not have this.
People do not need to be starving in the street by the millions but we do not all need to be equally poor either.

Its not about protecting the rich or corporations its about protecting the right to succeed or fail. A "glass cieling" in my opinion is as bad as a " mattress floor" in other words preventing success is as bas as make failure comfortable. I am fine with a saftey net/trampoline I am not ok with the safety hammock.

Jack21222

I just read a bunch of conservative talking points, but no actual substance. You didn't actually point out any specific problems, nor propose any specific solutions. Would you like to try and think for yourself, rather than regurgitating what you've heard on talk radio?