Comments about ‘Tax Policy Center in spotlight for its Mitt Romney study’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Oct. 25 2012 5:42 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Furry1993
Ogden, UT

Sorry, Mitt -- your figures don't add up.

Ying Fah
Provo, UT

The super-wealthy, those who will benefit the most from a Romney administration, have moved into a global world where the everyday concern of middle-class Americans is of absolutely no concern to themselves. These people travel and live globally. Except for having their interests protected, they are not interested in the more mundane activities of American of improving life here because their lives are not centered in the United States anymore. If their financial interests are allowed to continue to expand while avoiding any increase in responsibility for others here, they will just move on in their world and be content.

To these super-wealthy, elections are an investment, like any other, and they will pay, like they do for insurance, to keep their advantage. Even if it costs them hundreds of millions of dollars to manipulate the electoral proces, they will pay it because they will reap ten times they amount when they win. They don't really have a stake in America because they have moved on from America. Their central concern is growing and maintaining their position in the global economy. It doesn't matter if America's economy declines, they have a world-wide economy.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

In 2000, George W Bush promised that his tax cuts would mainly benefit average workers and that they would not increase the deficit. Here we are twelve years later and they think we're going to fall for the same scam again.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Until the Democrats controlled all of Congress, starting with the 2006 election, the tax cuts were working. All of the money that can be taken out of the economy has been taken. The fable of the rich guy is just as much a fable as the "video" causing the attack on the embassy. It's just another Obama lie.

Working people create tax revenue. The more jobs there are, the more revenue there will be.

Just how stupid does the government think we are? We pay a fixed rate sales tax. No State in the entire nation charges one person more sales tax in that locality on a gallon of milk than it charges another, but liberals can't accept that fact. They want somebody else to pay for everything in life. Romney knows that doesn't work. Obama knows that doesn't work, but it goes against his philosophy.

Obama is the one who ran up the $5 trillion deficit. Obama is the one who lost jobs in America. Obama is the one who is telling us some "rich guy" will pay for everything.

Will we never learn?

mcdugall
Layton, UT

@ Mike Richards - Funny thing about the numbers you suggested. G.W. Bush resided as President during the peak of the deficits 08/09 since then the deficits have decreased each year. Additionally, suggesting that a sitting congress can wreak havoc on an economy is less than one year its preposterous. The culprit of the economic collapse was wall street bankers and realtors who pumped up housing market to levels than were unsustainable then average Americans buying into the assets bubble and living beyond their means, which only works for a short period of time. The collapse was coming well before 2006, anyone who thought otherwise clearly wasn't looking at the data. Lastly, regardless of who is elected, Romney or Obama, there will be deficits for the upcoming decade, they are sustainable of they get below the 3% mark, which should happen shortly. The choice will be do we slash and burn programs that nearly all American rely on, except the super wealthy, or do we take a more sustainable and equitable approach without having the scorched earth policy.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Why isn't this a front page DN story with big headlines?

And for an excellent example of delusional thinking, see the post by Mike Roberts above.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Actually Mike, you are wrong….again.

MANY States do not tax on necessary items - like FOOD.

Modern cash registers are amazing.
They can add tax to un-necessary Junk foods like candy, soda, freezer pizza, ice cream, ect.
and No tax for fresh produce, canned vegetables, and dry goods like rice and grains.

MILK is a good food - so NO tax.
Only in Utah.

Your example is moot.

really?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mike Richards,

Everything you said in your post sounds logical and reasonable. The problem is that once put in practice, they do not work the way you and your fellow republicans hope. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Pres. Obama is not telling us "some rich guy" will pay for everything. He is telling us he is going to allow the Clinton-era tax rates for the highest earners to be restored. The rest of the 99% of the country will see the same tax rates. In case you forgot, during Pres. Clinton's presidency, we had record budget surpluses. Those were quickly wiped out by republican G.W.Bush with tax cuts and gigantic spending increases. (Off budget wars, prescription drug bill more expensive than Obamacare, tax cuts for all (including the top 1%). Remind us, how did his handling of the economy work out for Americans?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Sales tax rates are the same for every TAXABLE purchase in the locality in which they are required. Is that clear enough? The question is not whether milk is taxed, it is whether a "rich guy" pays more sales tax per dollar on his purchases than the poor guy.

Obama is clearly telling us that taxing the "rich guy" will solve the revenue vs expenditure problem in America. The CBO has clearly told us that taxing the "rich guy" will bring in a maximum of $60 billion per year. Obama is running a deficit of $1,5 TRILLION per year, The expenditures are 25 times greater than the expected increase in revenue.

Taxing the "rich guy" will not solve the problem.

Increasing the tax base will solve the problem IF expenses are cut to a reasonable level.

There are only three major expenses in the budget: Military, Social Security and Medicare. Those three items are more than the Obama's yearly deficit.

Revenues MUST be increased WITHOUT destroying the incentive to create new business and new jobs.

Taxing the "rich guy" will DESTROY jobs. Fewer jobs means less revenue.

Obama is too dense to understand that simple principle.

really?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Pres. Obama understands that euphemisms like "job creators" don't make much sense. The increase in revenue will not destroy jobs. Bill Clinton proved it. George W. Bush proved the opposite. He cut taxes on the top earners. Where are all the jobs?
I agree that expenses must be cut but increasing revenue must happen as well. When Mitt was asked if he would increase taxes by $1 in return for $10 of spending cuts he refused. Why? Because he isn't serious about reducing the deficit. He wants to increase the military's budget to a level that even the Pentagon has not requested. Why? Because he isn't serious about reducing our debt. He refuses to tell us how he is going to achieve his promises. Why? Because he doesn't want to ask anyone in this country to sacrifice anything to get back to fiscal security. In a recent debate he promised all retirees that Social Security and Medicare for them and the "soon to retire" would not change. How will he "get us on track for a balanced budget"? He won't. He is saying what he needs to say to win. Nothing more.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "mcdugall" what are you talking about? The housing bubble was due to decades of government requiring banks to make loans available to unqualified individuals.

Plus, you fail to recognize the fact that between 2000 and 2008 Bush and other republicans wanted to stop the flow of money that Freddie and Fannie were pushing. However, your buddy the Democrats wouldn't let any bills out of committee, and even went so far as to say that they were solvent 3 months before everything collapsed.

Do you appreciate the fact that even though deficts are decreasing, they are still 3 times as large as Bush's worst year, and have added more to the debt in 3 years than the previous 8?

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Do you appreciate the fact that even though deficts are decreasing, they are still 3 times as large as Bush's worst year,"

That's not true.

"The housing bubble was due to decades of government requiring banks to make loans available to unqualified individuals"

I've asked before: can you provide the language in the law that required this?

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

Mark,

Rush and Sean said its true, so it must be true!

Also Dems didn't control both houses through President Bush's eight years. Republicans controlled both houses for two years. Why didn't they fix the problem then?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

And what is Obama's plan? He, and his liberal friends think killing the goose that laid the golden eggs to pay yesterday's bills will allow him to spend more money we don't have on programs we don't need.

Giving more money to our out of control federal government is like giving more booze to an alcoholic. He'll just drink all of it and come back even more thirsty than before.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"And what is Obama's plan? He, and his liberal friends think killing the goose that laid the golden eggs to pay yesterday's bills will allow him to spend more money we don't have on programs we don't need."

Uh. . . No he doesn't, and no they don't. Why do you keep making things up?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: mark Salt Lake City, UT

Our national debt has gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office 4 years ago. The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the 8 years he Bush presidency.

You don't see a trend here?

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Yeah, the trend is that Bush created a budget with a massive upswing in deficit spending, and massive revenue cuts. The spending and taxing policies led directly to the worse economic situation this country, and the world, had seen in eighty years. This is the situation Obama inherited. As opposed to the situation President Bush inherited: a healthy economy with budget surpluses and a ten year projection on totally paying off the debt. President Bush and the Republicans blew it. The Bush tax cuts were the worst economic decision in the US federal government in modern history. By far.

But what in the world does your post have to do with your previous statement? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: mark Salt Lake City, UT
"Yeah, the trend is that Bush ...."

Yeah, it's Bush's fault. The trademark fall back excuse to provide a smokescreen for Obama's failures.

You really aren't going to like the outcome of next week's elections when Obama is given his walking papers.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Yeah, it's Bush's fault. The trademark fall back excuse to provide a smokescreen for Obama's failures."

It is not an excuse, I am just stating facts. I know you conservatives don't like facts. But I think it is very important to be able to be accurate about history, as well as to look at history in context so we can understand how we got here. But I understand, conservatives want to insist that the world did not exist prior to Obama. But it did, and I think one would be extremely silly to not have an awareness of the past, and how it affects the present. Very silly. Obama was handed a terrible economic situation coming into office, and I wont pretend otherwise. And he has done a very good job dealing with it.

I notice that you don't want to defend your made up claims. I don't blame you. They are indefensible.

But you are right, I won't be happy if Romney wins next week. It would be hard knowing so many Americans could support a campaign of lies. But I don't think he will win.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: mark Salt Lake City, UT

A leader gets results while a loser looks for someone else to blame. I gave you our national debt numbers above.

The election was Obama's to lose, and between his failure in the first presidential debate and the debacle in Libya he cooked his own goose. (Romney is ahead in the early voting.)

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments