The Real Mitt Romney

[Flint]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I believe the figure is 47%.

According to the polls from immediately pre-debate, yes, it actually 47% vs. 47%

[Big Sarge]

US Marine & mule at the Mountain Warrior Training Center

[Big Sarge]

Are we talking linear or non-linear warfare? Or we could say COIN OPS (Counterinsurgency) vs Force on Force? It really doesn't matter. I totally understand the point President Obama made. The crack about bayonets ticked me and alot of others. The bayonet is a symbol that no matter what you do in the military, you have to be prepared to be on the frontline & "fix bayonets".

I'm just being an ass. I really do understand the point. Plus, I admit that Romney isn't my favorite.

[Adak]

@BigV:

Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. The Egyptians used it when Israel was hit by famine, and had to relocate to Egypt to survive, if you remember.

Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?

Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry. If you haven't seen a recovery take off, I can tell you it's a wonderfully giddy thing, imo.

Would you mind if I linked you to a notable gov't economist for an oversight on how and why this works?

It won't make you like Romney, because Romney isn't mentioned. It's all about economic policy in a capitalist system.

[BigV]

I'm not angry Adak. Not with you anyhow. I'm angry that Romney's successfully lying about what he can promise. It is this deception that angers me. I am calling him on it. I'm not asking for a "reasonable" projection, I'd settle for a possible projection, within the parameters he himself set. It doesn't add up.

Furthermore, your "high standard" is a good one, and one that could fairly be applied to Romney's tax plan, since he's touting his economic savoir-faire. I'm a reasonably smart guy, I can understand stuff, explain it to me, I have asked. You're his only surrogate here, so the question falls to you. There are lots of naysayers, ones whose arguments appear sound to me. I have not heard any argument from you in support of his plans. His desires, sure. His platitudes, sure. But that's not a plan. "I'm going to create 12 million new jobs" is not a plan. Tell me the PLAN. What is your PLAN?

This has not happened, absolutely not from Romney regarding his tax plan. What deductions? How does it add up? These kinds of questions. You and I both know why he won't say so. He won't say so because it doesn't add up. And by specifically identifying x or y or z, he opens himself to resistance from those people who *like* x or y or z. He won't expose himself to that. But it's still not a plan.

"We need to get jobs back from China."

"On day one I'll label China a currency manipulator."

When pronounced in close proximity to each other, the second one sounds like a step toward achieving the second one. But for anyone who knows what the second one entails, there's no support for the first one. These kind of pastel platitudes are useless as policies, though they can be effective to activate people's emotions. That's why he does this. He's campaigning, promising. I get that, and more power to him. But what he's promising can not be delivered.

I will not abide his lies.

[BigV]

The majority of the candidate's income last year came from his investments: capital gains ($6.8 million), taxable interest ($3 million) and dividends ($3.7 million).

In addition, Romney reported $450,470 in business income.

--snip--

The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.

Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover. cite.

Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?

According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.

How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't! By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.

You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

Experts have questioned whether someone with Malt's close ties to Romney could oversee the candidate's finances with true independence. In addition to serving as the trustee for Romney's charitable foundation, Malt's law firm has represented Romney's interests in legal disputes, and Malt served as the primary outside counsel to Romney's company, Bain Capital. A sign of those ties surfaced in August, when Romney filed his financial disclosure report and revealed that Malt had invested over $1 million of the candidate's money in the Solamere Founders Fund. Solamere is managed by Tagg Romney, Mitt's son.

In an email to ABC News, Romney's campaign acknowledged the arrangement does not live up to the strict standards for blind trusts established by the federal Office of Government Ethics. But the campaign was also quick to note that those rules do not apply to candidates for office -- they apply only to federal office holders.

link

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

link

Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.

Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.

You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery. The speed will be slowed down by the recession in Europe and by the recent slow down in the Chinese economy. But unlike today, when we know we have 11.9 million manufacturing jobs, versus 12.4 million in '2009, and the dow dropped 240 points and is expecting a "down" 4th quarter*, things will begin to REALLY look up.

Remember what that felt like?

*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh, proving Romney, and you, lied about the blind trust is being snarky?
Cool, be prepared for a lot more snark.

[Stormieweather]

I don't hate Romney, nor do I hate wealthy people. I happen to be content with my personal level of comfort/wealth.

What I DO hate is prevarication, evasion, word manipulation and outright lying.

And I also hate stacking the deck to give wealthy people, who don't need MORE in order to survive, MORE. Particularly when such deck-stacking is done at the expense of those who DO need MORE.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't

Fixed that for ya.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover. cite.

Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?

According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.

How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't! By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.

You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.

I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.

There are currently a HUGE pool of money, kept outside the states, because anyone with overseas offices, would be taxed on that money AGAIN, if they brought it back into the US.

That capital tax rate, is one of, if not the highest, corporate tax rate, in the world.

Here's what Germany does: you sell stuff overseas, you pay taxes in that country, (as we do also), and you pay little to NOTHING when you bring that money back to Germany! Their take on it is different than ours, however. Creating jobs is a DUTY written into the German Constitution, and every party takes it dead seriously.

Which is why companies like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and all kinds of German manufactured goods, can compete very well. They make GREAT power tools, I can attest!

That's been a problem with our economy for years, and Romney plans to help fix it. By just lowering the rate, a LOT of money (how much? I don't know. ), will return to the states. And we will be more competitive, in overseas business sales, etc.

I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.

Will it meet a certain specific goal? I don't know. I know cutting taxes massively helped Kennedy out of his recession, it helped Cleveland out of his recession, it helped Reagan out of Carter's recession. And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.

You can match any lie you get from Romney, with two from Obama, so please, let's not go into the "he's a liar", game. Politicians are not known for being strictly tied to the facts. Especially while they are campaigning.

When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:

1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.

2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.

If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.

[BigV]

I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry.

You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery.

I think I know what somebody wants for Christmas!








A cracker.

[ZenGum]

And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.

FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started trying to intervene.

As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started trying to intervene.

As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.

We had VERY high taxes, throughout the 1950's, but the gov't also cut it's spending MAGNIFICENTLY, when WWII, was over. You can tax the rich until they're all bankrupt, but it wouldn't pay for the excesses, and wasteful spending we have today.

@Richlevy - you know who pays all those gov't workers their wages and benefits, don't you? Still feel all warm and cozy about 55,000 more new federal gov't employees?

I'd love to tell you that the recovery with Romney, will start on Day 1 of his term in office, but the federal gov't is a BIG bureaucratic nightmare. If you see an organizational chart of just who reports to Dept. of Homeland Security, it's enough to make you dizzy. It will take time.