Posted on 01/18/2008 5:08:54 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Romney proposes $250 bln economic stimulus package Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:33pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Weighing in on a debate about stimulating the slowing U.S. economy, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney called on Friday for a package of tax breaks expected to cost $250 billion, according to a report by the CNBC business TV channel.
The former Massachusetts governor's package, CNBC said, centered on several permanent tax cuts, rather than temporary rebates and spending programs favored by others engaged in the stimulus discussion in Washington and on the campaign trail.
Romney plans to propose permanently reducing the rate for the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent, retroactive to 2007, eliminating Social Security payroll taxes for workers over 65 and eliminating capital gains and dividend taxes on households earning under $200,000 a year, CNBC said on its Web site.
He would also permanently reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent over two years and allow businesses to depreciate the value of new equipment purchases faster.
CNBC said an aide to Romney pegged the total cost of his package at about $250 billion.
President George W. Bush earlier on Friday called on Congress to enact a package of temporary tax cuts and other measures estimated to cost up to $150 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“Tax cuts are good. Just pointing out the next vote is in SC and he promises tax cuts. “
It’s not like he came up with all of it yesterday. He announced a lot of it back in september, has been running on a consistent and genuine pro-growth economic agenda, and today provided a timely reminder of the RIGHT kind of stimulus needed since it is topic A in DC now:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070908/NEWS08/209080310/-1/news08
Saturday, September 8, 2007
By KEVIN LANDRIGAN
Telegraph Staff
CONCORD – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney proposed cutting federal taxes on investment for the middle class Friday.
Romney’s proposal would reduce taxes on capital gains, interest earned and stock dividends to 0 percent for those earning $200,000 a year or less, which the candidate said would benefit 95 percent of American families.
“You’re creating a dramatic new incentive to save, which is savings will be tax- free. . . . Your interest, dividends and capital gains will be tax-free, which will allow people to establish pretty substantial nest eggs,” Romney told The Associated Press.
“Any tax reduction means more money in our pockets to invest in our country, and tax reductions stimulate our economy in general.’’
“And you wonder why we get such crappy politicians.”
Maybe because when they come up with good conservative ideas, we have too many clueless conservatives bashing them silly because they have grudges.
“Wanna bet you never get your paltry tax cut? But, even if you do, it will never be worth the price you had to pay for it.”
Spoken like a tax-and-spend liberal.
“He did win Michigan after promising 100 billion to the auto industry.”
Cite for this claim? When did he make that statement?
It’s sad to see someone like you participate in such a cynical charade.
“Wow. That is pretty deep. I just want tax cuts and less spending. I could care less about whether it is a favor. It will certainly get my vote, so I guess he would be buying my vote with that policy.”
It is such deep and moral principles of eshewing good policy on the ‘principle’ that its wrong if it might be liked by voters that got Alan Keyes where he is today. Oh, if only we could get a man to run for President like that against Obama! ... it would like Keyes v Obama 2004 all over again, only even more of a blowout.
“And you wonder why we get such crappy politicians.”
No, we get crappy politicians because people vote on meaningless things such as which church a politician belongs to. That is how we got Jimmy Carter. He was a great Baptist but had lousy political policy. I vote on policy—not churches.
Some of the posts on this thread by the anti-Mitt crowd are almost laughable. I wonder if they have a clue as to how silly they look.
They’ve used the left so much to attack Mitt, they might be becoming the left.
Is the phony promise of a penny-ante “tax cut” going to be worth electing a politician who wants to impose socialized medicine on the whole country, like he did on Massachusetts?
Is the phony promise of a penny-ante “tax cut” going to be worth electing a politician who has no scruples about banning certain firearms, the really useful kind, simply because he thinks they look scary?
Is the phony promise of a penny-ante “tax cut” going to be worth electing a politician who has no conscience about tailoring his rhetoric to the political need of today, with no reference or regard for anything he has ever said or done in his entire political career?
Is the phony promise of a penny-ante “tax cut” going to be worth electing a politician who could care less about the foundational principles this free republic is built upon?
You sell your liberty and your franchise damned cheap.
No charade. Honest opinion. I dont care whose idea it is - This is good policy.
Thompson’s tax cuts are good policy. Rudy’s tax cuts are good ideas too. And this proposal by Mitt Romney is a great idea. These tax rate cuts will work.
You are the one engaged in the charade. you bash this as a ‘bribe’ yet don’t even answer the basic question asked of you:
Are you really saying the Reagan / G W B / Romney tax rate cut economic prescription to avoid recession is bad policy?
Forget about votes and how it plays out politically - is this good policy?
If you can’t even admit this is an improvement on status quo in our tax system, if you cant even admit this is good progrowth policy, then your anti-Mitt bias is simply blinding you from common sense.
You’re the only one who brought up churches.
Like I said. Go ahead and cut taxes. Just don’t think I then owe you something or that you’ve done me some big favor.
Answer the question in #129.
If another candidate proposes the same tax cuts Romney proposes, I will praise it. You should too.
$250 billion is “penny-ante” ?!?!
All your questions are a diversion. you say ‘worth electing’ as if you can’t approve of a policy even if you dont approve of the candidate. Why bring in red herrings like gun policy when that is nto the topic? Is your phony disapproval of a Reaganomics tax cut proposal going to rescue the hapless Keyes candidacy?
“Is the phony promise of a penny-ante “tax cut” going to be worth electing a politician who could care less about the foundational principles this free republic is built upon?”
Oh really. Which of McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Hillary, Obama is the best on that score? You think bashing Romney will salvage those foundational principles? the ignorant-about-constitution Huck, RINO McCain or the Democrat Socialists are going to be just fine?
No, the anti-Romney is all about his religion as clearly shown as admitted by a few in these posts. That is why all the ridiculous posts stating tax cuts are bad, etc.
Still didn’t answer the question. Mitt didnt propose this to make you feel good, but because it is pro-growth.
Do you agree that this is good policy?
Even much earlier than that. In a February 2007 speech in Detroit, he outlined his plan to eliminate taxes on interest and dividends, as well as his call for the Bush tax cuts to become permanent. In a Florida speech in March 2007 he outlined his plan to lower income tax rates for all Americans and to reduce corporate tax rates. He's really not saying anything different in what's now being called his "economic stimulus" package than he's been saying on the campaign trail for over a year.
One last question before I hit the sack. I'll check for your answer tomorrow.
How much proposed tax cutting would it take for Hillary to buy your vote?
They all suck, yes. But none of them are as dangerous as the liberal lying former Governor of Massachusetts - the man who advanced liberalism more in four years than anyone else has managed to do in their entire careers.
Romney has no credibility. He can’t be trusted no matter what he promises.
Either that, or they never knew what fiscal conservatism was in the first place. After reading some of the replies here, I'm beginning to think that might be the case. Add RDS on top of economic illiteracy and you get the lunacy we're seeing now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.