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 ...
Exactly how is this insane?
Do you honestly think that our nation’s ridiculous corporate tax rate doesn’t need fixing?
If the economy begins slowing down and you want to change that, you might try....
Well, if you’re a conservative, a tax break. Are you sure you’re on the right site?
“Should read “Romney proposes stealing $250 billion from taxpayers to give to deadbeats to buy their votes”. This guy is a liberal. Why does he have an “R” next to his name?”
Perhaps you might try reading. It’s amazing what putting a few letters into words and a few words into sentences and a few sentences into ideas will do for you.
Romney is proposing a tax cut. But both you and your little associate were so quick to hate Romney (Mitt Derangement?) and so quick to buy into the flim-flam nonsense of some Reuters reporter who refers to a tax cut as “costing” that you didn’t even read the article.
I bet you absolutely HATED the Reagan tax cuts. If you were even paying attention then.
“Not exactly - he wants to give some people their and/or our money. But not everybody - just those that he thinks might be willing to vote for him.”
Corporations don’t vote. But they sure do hire a lot of people. And a lot of them are tailing back business in a country with the 2nd highest rate of corporate taxation in the world.
I fail to see this being the only tax break Romney has proposed. If you’re really paying attention to this, he’s proposed a cut in the capital gains to all.
You knee jerk reaction was ill-considered.
This is ‘pandering’ of the best kind, the kind of tax cut policy that Reagan and GWB ran and won on:
1. Tax rate reduction is good economic policy that is pro-growth
2. It is letting people keep their own money
3. He is doing it the *right* way, cutting tax rates permanently and not just giving a gimmicky giveaway
4. He knows that our corporate tax rate is not competitive with other nations and specifically is helping out there
We should reject socialism and embrace progrowth tax cuts.
“Corporations don’t vote”
Corporations also don’t ever pay taxes. They pass them on to their customers in the form of higher prices as an expense rolled into the product or service, just like every other expense is part of the price of the product or service. A business is just a collection point for the government to get the tax from the people. At the end of the day, people pay taxes—not businesses.
Also, corporate tax breaks are always a good thing. Corporations and businesses are not the evil enemy that the liberals make them out to be. They are what makes us all wealthy by the part they contribute to our GDP.
We should reject politicians who have no scruples about using the income tax system, an expression of one of the key planks of the communist manifesto, as vehicles to cynically forward their own political ambition.
~”Robin Hood Republicanism. Joy.”~
Wow. I haven’t gotten through the thread yet, but is that a knee-jerk reactionary response if I ever saw one.
I’m sure everybody else has torn you apart over your dumb assumptions already, so I will forbear.
Folks, this is Reaganomics. Plain as day.
I am now fully convinced that if Reagan himself came back from the dead as a smart, articulate businessman, we'd get a bunch of whiners saying he's a RINO.
So you support or oppose this particular application of Reaganomic principles?
If you really want to stimulate the economy, how about not taking the $250 billion in the first place!
~”If this tax cut is going to “cost” $250 Billion, then who’s going to pay for it? My children? My grandchildren?”~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Read up.
You may want to have your knee looked at. That jerking can’t be natural.
As in a tax cut not to collect the $250 billion? Brilliant idea. I don’t know why Romeny never thought of that.
Vote-buying is not a conservative principle.
I’ve never stood up for Romney before this, but all you guys dumping on Mitt obviously weren’t around when Reagan proposed his tax cuts in the early ‘80’s. Otherwise you’d realize just how much you sound like Kennedy, O’Neil, Biden and the rest of the democrats, who ended up swallowing all the poison they spewed forth.
“We should reject politicians who have no scruples about using the income tax system, an expression of one of the key planks of the communist manifesto, as vehicles to cynically forward their own political ambition.”
Oh, so Romney’s plan on cutting income tax rates to reduce income tax burdens is bad?
Man you must have HATED Ronald Reagan’s Kemp-Roth income tax cuts then.
We should vigorously accept and applaud statesman, whether Reagan or GWB or Romney, who seek to improve the economy and the tax system by cutting tax rates structurally. Only the socialists and liberals call this ‘cynical’ in their zeal to oppose plans that lessen the burden of government. It should be appluaded because it is good pro-growth low-taxes policy.
Now, go sit in a corner and read Gilder’s “wealth and poverty” until you learn your lesson.
~”You can be sure that if it had been Fred proposing these tax cuts, these same detractors would be falling all over themselves to gush about it.”~
And the real difference is, so would the Romney supporters.
Yes they do indeed.
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.