yeah but they're obsolete and they know it... @ least their so called programs are
That is hilarious!
Seems a bit odd to me that all of the people grilling Romney on the specifics of his plans never cared that Obama had no specifics or experience when he won in 2008. Can Romney spell out specifics? Doubt it. He will not know the whole story until he gets in office. No one from outside can know all of the inner workings of DC until they are submerged in it. BUT, I'd trust a successful businessman to right the ship more than a community agitator with no experience in anything but a classroom. Theorists can come up with magnificent plans on paper, but when you add people to the mix things change. Communism sounds good on paper, but when you add people it breaks down. People have attitudes, personalities, etc. that make the idea a loser.
Seems like to me that if your taxes are cut 20% you don't really need a lot of deductions..correct? Also, why are we all thinking about the "lost revenue"..it's our money, not theirs. They need to make it work with less money in the government coffers. CUT SPENDING!! We are required to tighten our belts and make our household budgets work on the money we earn..We cannot simply get more money to cover all we want. If the checkbook ledger says "$0", you STOP writing checks.
Every election has its own themes depending on what is going on.
The 2008 election came just a month after the financial crisis hit. The Bush administration had abandoned all its free market principles out of fear the financial system would collapse. There was no incumbent running.
Both McCain and Obama had specific economic platforms. Both were incremental, neither was revolutionary, but they were specific. McCain's big item was doing away with the Alternative Minimum Tax, Obama's was a windfall profits tax on oil. Both promised specific—but narrow—reductions in taxes.
Romney on the other hand has a proposal that would make enormous changes in the tax code by restructuring taxes—reducing rates by 20% and making up the revenue by eliminating deductions. The numbers are available to compute how well it works if he can provide specifics.
Because the GOP has emphasized the need to reduce the deficit, it is important to know specifics—whether he would eliminate the deductions for mortgage interest, state income taxes and local property taxes. If his plan is not revenue neutral—as many economists believe—it will add to the deficit.
If Romney's plan is truly revenue neutral, some people will pay more and others less. We need to know those details.
Thank you for clarifying.
It makes sense that to be neutral, the +++ needs to be balanced by the ---. That's the only way you can get zero sum. Unless there's a place where a miracle happens.
Booklover - thanks - I love you way you said that. Very cool.
You are just great booklover! : )
Swear more. Please.
Yeah it's fantasy Jonathan
The Tax Policy Center has published a new table showing the effects of capping deductions at either $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000 or eliminating them completely. None of these options provide enough revenue to make up for a 20% cut in rates. It's not even close.