Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mitt Hussein Romney flip-flops on Tax Pledge
mofopolitics ^ | April 25th, 2012 | mofopolitics

Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:30 AM PDT by Mozilla

Ugh. If Mitt Hussein Romney wasn’t running for President, he’d be endorsing Obama…

Check Out The Clip:

In 2007 Romney struggled to explain Tax Pledge Flip-Flop on 60 Minutes


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rino; romney
Heaven Help Us. This Joker Mittens was Obama's choice to win the election.
1 posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:37 AM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“If Mitt Hussein Romney wasn’t running for President, he’d be endorsing Obama”

Hey, You get to choose the color of your slavemaster!


2 posted on 05/04/2012 7:29:04 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (FOCUS ON FACTS: 0bamaCare Hated. Worst Recovery. Failed Stimulus. Worst Deficits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Mitt Hussein Romney Ultimate Flip Flop collection:

Romney: Ultimate Flip Flop

3 posted on 05/04/2012 7:32:18 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Mitt Hussein Romney Ultimate Flip Flop collection:

Romney: Ultimate Flip Flop

4 posted on 05/04/2012 7:33:16 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Don’t worry, we’ll shake the etch-a-sketch up again after he’s elected.


5 posted on 05/04/2012 7:39:32 AM PDT by dblshot (Insanity: electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
I don't know about this one. As an economist, I know that the policy prescriptions must change over time because the economic environment changes. Monetary policy right now is useless, but everyone climbs all over everything Ben says. Yet, when someone starts talking about tax policy, they don't even seem to give the guy a decent hearing. I'd be in favor of new taxes--especially a flat tax--if Mitt promised to throw the current tax code out the window. Also, changing one's mind over time isn't always a bad thing even though it can be labeled with the negative connotation of flip-flopping. Etching your thoughts in stone just means you're doomed to not make the necessary changes that clearly must come about in a dynamic economy.
6 posted on 05/04/2012 7:42:57 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
7 posted on 05/04/2012 7:44:59 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Lol,..

Here is another one


8 posted on 05/04/2012 7:52:58 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Time to send Mitt letters if you have a problem. He has to move to the right and he will. And that’s the way it is.


9 posted on 05/04/2012 8:03:17 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Good words, but likely to fall on deaf ears around here. This is the “I hate Romney, because I hate Romney” crowd.

I’m curious, however, what is it about a “flat tax” that you think will help?


10 posted on 05/04/2012 8:10:19 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Why are Greepers still going after Romney? It is over and everyone should be focused on taking down Obama instead of smarting over their losses in the Primary. I said this before and I will say it again. I would campaign hard and vote for Mickey Mouse rather than see Obama get reelected. Romney may not have been my first choice, but right now he is the only choice. Those of you still taking shots at him, need to settle down and focus on the main objective.


11 posted on 05/04/2012 8:10:58 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Why are Freepers still going after Romney? It is over and everyone should be focused on taking down Obama instead of smarting over their losses in the Primary. I said this before and I will say it again. I would campaign hard and vote for Mickey Mouse rather than see Obama get reelected. Romney may not have been my first choice, but right now he is the only choice. Those of you still taking shots at him, need to settle down and focus on the main objective.


12 posted on 05/04/2012 8:11:34 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Why are Freepers still going after Romney? It is over and everyone should be focused on taking down Obama instead of smarting over their losses in the Primary. I said this before and I will say it again. I would campaign hard and vote for Mickey Mouse rather than see Obama get reelected. Romney may not have been my first choice, but right now he is the only choice. Those of you still taking shots at him, need to settle down and focus on the main objective.


13 posted on 05/04/2012 8:11:51 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

Sorry about the duplicate postings. Have some computer issues.


14 posted on 05/04/2012 8:14:16 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy
Why are Greepers still going after Romney?

Because a liberal socialist political hack is a socialist political hack regardless of political affiliation.

0bama - an outspoken liberal socialist political hack promoting his agenda as good for America.

Romney - a change his stance day to day to hide his liberal socialist political agenda to make you think he is conservative so he can promote himself via a liberal socialist hack agenda.

That's why, after all this isn't a football game to cheer for a team.

15 posted on 05/04/2012 8:24:24 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
The flat tax is “resource-allocation neutral”, which means that it has less allocation affects than the current tax. Current tax policy is designed to not only raise revenue, but also to encourage/discourage certain types of behavior (e.g., solar subsidies, cigarette taxes). The Fair Tax scares me because the “prebate” lets the politicians use the back door to get their hands on (and screw up) tax policy...again. Also, if you must pay a flat tax, it means everyone who works “has something in the game.” With 51% of the population currently paying no taxes, they vote for all the freebies they can get.
16 posted on 05/04/2012 8:36:30 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: econjack

I fully agree with your rationale with regard to the 51% and the so-called “Fair Tax”. Interestingly, the flat tax (if by that we mean absolutely no deductions, no exemptions, no credits) was essentially how the current tax system began. Over time, however, it morphed into a social steering mechanism favoring home ownership, charitable giving and other “preferred” behaviors. It also began to recognize the burden grandma’s glaucoma placed upon her versus the young man who made identical income. Would you leave any of this in place? If not, how does one sell this to the nation? If so, who and how do you decide?


17 posted on 05/04/2012 11:58:46 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

I favor absolutely no deductions for anything and a flat rate of 17% (Friedman’s rate). Once you allow any deductions, even if the rate is fixed, the average and marginal tax rates are no longer equal and I do not want that. True, some hardships and sad stories will emerge, but that’s the way it goes. If you make one exception, the flood gates are open again and off we go.

I wish I knew how to sell it, since 51% don’t pay anything now. I guess the only way is to point out that the rate is half what it currently is and the rich can’t benefit by hiring expensive tax lawyers. Everybody is treated the same, rich or poor plus everybody has something “in the game.” You could also show you would actually collect more using this type of tax and, with some political guts, could reduce the deficit.


18 posted on 05/04/2012 2:26:10 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: econjack
All your assumptions are true...

"I guess the only way is to point out that the rate is half what it currently is and the rich can’t benefit by hiring expensive tax lawyers. Everybody is treated the same, rich or poor plus everybody has something “in the game.” You could also show you would actually collect more using this type of tax and, with some political guts, could reduce the deficit."

But, your observation that 51% don't pay any tax now, coupled with a new system which would require they pay tax on welfare, social security payments, capital gains and even interest/dividends from savings/investments, is going to meet a lot of resistance. Picture the article in the paper...Family of four with dad making $ 20K as a lawn mower has to pay $ 3,400 in Federal tax. Hmmm.

19 posted on 05/04/2012 4:54:12 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Yep, it would be such a hard sell it will never happen. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. When someone is only making $10/hr like the guy you mentioned, I have to ask “Why?” I went to school with a number of guys who I think are probably making that per year, but I don’t feel too badly about it because they just goofed off in school. They probably had a lot more fun than I did in high school, but they’re paying for it now. I find it hard to feel sorry for them. On the other hand, there are those who are disabled in some way and I do think they should be helped, but I’d rather see that help be like it used to be: private charities and the church. If I’m going to “help” the poor, I’d like to have some say in who gets my charitable money, not some bureaucrat who doles out my money so he can get reelected.


20 posted on 05/05/2012 6:33:13 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Well, you have a stronger view of personal responsibility than 90% of the US (I am probably in that 10% with you). You noted in your first post, however, that the ability to cut & run, to change with the times is important. But, here you hold a view that may have been popular in 1949 and has now fallen out of favor. What good is an idea that can no longer find its audience?


21 posted on 05/05/2012 9:30:35 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson