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
“If Mitt Hussein Romney wasn’t running for President, he’d be endorsing Obama”
Hey, You get to choose the color of your slavemaster!
Don’t worry, we’ll shake the etch-a-sketch up again after he’s elected.
Here is another one
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sorry about the duplicate postings. Have some computer issues.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.