Romney Will Raise Taxes, Private Equity Argues

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 13:49:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

www.thestreet.com/story/11404656/1/romney-will-raise-taxes-private-equity-argues.html

This is the Republican uber establishment. This is the 1%. And they are saying that Romney woud have no choice but to raise taxes. "Read my Lips" all over again?

(source for article is a post in the engines roar thread by usaone)

Romney is a RINO. That's what RINOs do. Would not surprise me one bit.

[gavinsnana]

Romney is Obama in a different suit.. Obama will raise taxes as well..and double tax the heck out of us!

[gavinsnana]

I wouldn't be surprised if they send their "Tax Police" at home garage sales. They already started doing this to Pay Pal just last year. Anything over 200 deposts and 20K they now turn you into the IRS.. Don't cha just love em? ;D

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The problem of course is that taxes need to be raised. The middle class needs to accept the reality that the huge swath of people in the middle with no or very low tax liability are going to have to gear up for a tax increase.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 14:00:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Feb 7, 2012 13:56:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The problem of course is that taxes need to be raised. The middle class needs to accept the reality that the huge swath of people in the middle with no or very low tax liability are going to have to gear up for a tax increase.

The Bush tax cuts should be repealed, I'm glad we agree on that.

As a businessman, I would expect you to be fiscally prudent.

I thought the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the RICH!!! Wow, you've blown apart my whole CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, MediaMatters worldview...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

As a businessman, I would expect you to be fiscally prudent.

I have always liked the Wal-Mart model of taxation. Collect a small amount from a whole bunch of people. It's not only just plain good business, it is smart. You diversify your tax base, and you don't have the whole country at the mercy of a small group of people that can largely choose whether or not to turn income on or off.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 14:11:15 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well of course the Bush tax cuts were given disproportionately to the wealthy. All tax payers saw their taxes decrease though.

So now that Mr. Rubenstein has pocketed billions due to the policies of his last puppet, he is OK with having them reversed by the guy who could be his next one. Nice.

No, the Bush tax cuts- now the Obama, Reid, Pelosi tax cuts (Thank you in December 2010), were not disproportionately given to the rich. The rich pay the majority of taxes, so they get a majority of the tax cuts. That's how a progressive tax code works.

I think the notion that ALL taxpayers saw their taxes decrease would come as a big surprise to a lot of people on the left.

And the uber-establishment rich guys are ALWAYS going to do well. They can't be stopped, and it wouldn't help anyone if they could be.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

No, the proportionately went to the wealthy. Those that pay a much larger proportion of the tax burden got a tax cut proportionate to their tax burden. Now, you can argue that isn't right- morally, but you can't argue that it's incorrect- factually.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Only to those on the left that don't read. This is no secret.

Oh, the places I could go with this...

Are you trying to get me banned...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Anyway- back to the OP, step one of any RINO administration is to compromise on a matter of political, economic, and moral importance to all those that dragged your ass across the finish line. In order to thank conservatives for all their hard work, Bush 41 compromised and raised taxes. Bush 43 learned from that, so he compromised and let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, and of course Medicare Part D-- two of the biggest problems our country faces right now on a long, long list of big problems. So, I have no doubt whatsoever that should Mitt become President, he'll want to 'unite' the country and set a 'new tone' and all the usual RINO horseshit and in order to do so, he'll compromise on something critical. Mitt is a tad more tone deaf than your average RINO, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if he went for a massive tax increase on producers and job creators dressed up as "deficit reduction" or some other "uniting" theme that involves a complete abandonment of conservative principles, and a throwing of conservative supporters under the bus. This is why I have no intention of being a supporter.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 14:07:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 7, 2012 14:00:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The Bush tax cuts should be repealed, I'm glad we agree on that.

As a businessman, I would expect you to be fiscally prudent.

I thought the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the RICH!!! Wow, you've blown apart my whole CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, MediaMatters worldview...

Now that the Bush tax cuts have become the Obama tax cuts, they are for everyone.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 14:39:24 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Feb 7, 2012 14:29:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

No, the proportionately went to the wealthy. Those that pay a much larger proportion of the tax burden got a tax cut proportionate to their tax burden. Now, you can argue that isn't right- morally, but you can't argue that it's incorrect- factually.

How does the capital gains cut work into that theory?

I guess you are referring to the "uber wealthy" who derive most of their income from dividends?

I don't feel it is unfair. For starters, the capital gains tax is basically a flat tax. Everyone who pays it, pays the same rate.

Those who pay it pay gains on profits left over after the company that pays the dividend pays the corporate income tax.

The capital gains tax is, from the get-go, a bogus class-warfare tax from the start. I'd like to see 0% capital gains, and 0% corporate income tax.

As long as we are going to tax the production of income, savings, and investment- which I think is misguided- lets stick to taxing ONLY the realized income of individuals.

What I'd really like to see is a shift to taxing consumption. That would solve SO MANY problems at once, it would be a dramatic, almost instant boost to the whole economy.

[usaone]

The private sector is starting to realize we need to raise taxes. It started with Buffet and more and more will come out in support.
We have bills to pay.

Also Bush just announce that if he had to do it all over again he would bail out the car companies.

bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10342178-bush-on-auto-bailouts-id-do-it-again

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2012 13:53:43 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Read the article. This isn't Romney talking. (he is saying just the opposite) This is the Head of the Calysle Group. This is the power behind the throne.

i assume you meant Carlysle? i think that company has been rebranded, if i am not mistaken. and i also believe that Soros sold his shares, which is not a good sign.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2012 13:54:46 GMT -5 gavinsnana said:

Romney is Obama in a different suit.. Obama will raise taxes as well..and double tax the heck out of us!

who is "us"?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2012 14:07:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 7, 2012 14:00:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The Bush tax cuts should be repealed, I'm glad we agree on that.

As a businessman, I would expect you to be fiscally prudent.

I thought the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the RICH!!! Wow, you've blown apart my whole CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, MediaMatters worldview...

nobody with any sense ever said that they were ONLY for the rich, Captain Hyperbole.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2012 18:22:21 GMT -5 usaone said:

The private sector is starting to realize we need to raise taxes. It started with Buffet and more and more will come out in support.
We have bills to pay.

Also Bush just announce that if he had to do it all over again he would bail out the car companies.

bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10342178-bush-on-auto-bailouts-id-do-it-again

reality trumps ideology once again.

[zipity]

Romney is a RINO. That's what RINOs do. Would not surprise me one bit.

The other thing they do is win presidential elections. As we discussed in the other thread, in recent history the only republicans who have won the white house were all RINOs. IMO, the real republican base is made up of moderate independents, not conservatives and evangelicals.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2012 22:33:34 GMT -5 zipity said:

Romney is a RINO. That's what RINOs do. Would not surprise me one bit.

The other thing they do is win presidential elections. As we discussed in the other thread, in recent history the only republicans who have won the white house were all RINOs. IMO, the real republican base is made up of moderate independents, not conservatives and evangelicals.

there is another unfortunate reality. if the Evangelicals and conservatives can't rally behind Romney, then he will very likely LOSE.

[zipity]

there is another unfortunate reality. if the Evangelicals and conservatives can't rally behind Romney, then he will very likely LOSE.

Conversely, if they get the type of candidate they want the pubs will lose the independent vote and again they lose.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2012 23:14:35 GMT -5 zipity said:

there is another unfortunate reality. if the Evangelicals and conservatives can't rally behind Romney, then he will very likely LOSE.

Conversely, if they get the type of candidate they want the pubs will lose the independent vote and again they lose.

it is hard to see a clear path to victory for the GOP this year, isn't it?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 22:33:34 GMT -5 zipity said:

Romney is a RINO. That's what RINOs do. Would not surprise me one bit.

The other thing they do is win presidential elections. As we discussed in the other thread, in recent history the only republicans who have won the white house were all RINOs. IMO, the real republican base is made up of moderate independents, not conservatives and evangelicals.

And I will remind you again this statement is demonstrably false. RINOs lose.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

You can't win without evangelicals. I don't care who you are. Reagan carried them, then Bush 41, then Clinton got 'em, then Bush, and Obama got 'em in 2008.

[zipity]

And I will remind you again this statement is demonstrably false. RINOs lose.

And I will remind you again, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 would all be considered RINOs. Many won only because RINOs used to be main stream republicans and today's republicans were back then considered the fringe element of the party. By the way, you still haven't named one conservative ever elected President.

You can't win without evangelicals. I don't care who you are. Reagan carried them, then Bush 41, then Clinton got 'em, then Bush, and Obama got 'em in 2008.

Sure you could, in fact I still say that McCain could have beat Obama if he had picked a female moderate republican who was pro-choice. The evangelicals would have walked and been replaced by just about every Hilary supporter in the country. In fact Jodi Rell, Connecticut's governor at the time would have been an excellent choice. Unfortunately for McCain and the republican party, McCain either caved to the evangelicals or was just to stupid not to see the opportunity. Not only would he have won but the pubs would have been able to shed the abortion issue once and for all. Instead McCain went for conservative eye candy and the rest is history.

[usaone]

Picking Palin lost us the election in 2008.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 8, 2012 6:50:07 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Feb 8, 2012 1:21:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

You can't win without evangelicals. I don't care who you are. Reagan carried them, then Bush 41, then Clinton got 'em, then Bush, and Obama got 'em in 2008.

Obama got the evangelical vote? Really, he carried the Bible Belt?

He lost some deep red states, but I was as surprised as anyone to see that yes, he did win the evangelical vote.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 8, 2012 9:01:48 GMT -5 usaone said:

Picking Palin lost us the election in 2008.

Sarah Palin in he only reason McCain didn't lose by double digits. She was a huge help.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 8, 2012 8:15:41 GMT -5 zipity said:

And I will remind you again this statement is demonstrably false. RINOs lose.

And I will remind you again, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 would all be considered RINOs. Many won only because RINOs used to be main stream republicans and today's republicans were back then considered the fringe element of the party. By the way, you still haven't named one conservative ever elected President.

You can't win without evangelicals. I don't care who you are. Reagan carried them, then Bush 41, then Clinton got 'em, then Bush, and Obama got 'em in 2008.

Sure you could, in fact I still say that McCain could have beat Obama if he had picked a female moderate republican who was pro-choice. The evangelicals would have walked and been replaced by just about every Hilary supporter in the country. In fact Jodi Rell, Connecticut's governor at the time would have been an excellent choice. Unfortunately for McCain and the republican party, McCain either caved to the evangelicals or was just to stupid not to see the opportunity. Not only would he have won but the pubs would have been able to shed the abortion issue once and for all. Instead McCain went for conservative eye candy and the rest is history.

Well, if it is your view that Reagan was a moderate on abortion, gun control, taxes, and the size and role of government then there's no point discussing this.

Start with a google search on Reagan quotes on abortion and life.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 22:33:34 GMT -5 zipity said:

Romney is a RINO. That's what RINOs do. Would not surprise me one bit.

The other thing they do is win presidential elections.

And that is why electing Obama or "republican" wont' change a damned thing in Washington.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 18:22:21 GMT -5 usaone said:

The private sector is starting to realize we need to raise taxes. It started with Buffet and more and more will come out in support.
We have bills to pay.

That's what a lot of people say. Yet, we all continue to take full advantage of the tax code to pay as little as we can. Some even lie and cheat to do it. I could refuse to itemize and pay more tax...but I don't. I could make anonymous donations rather than collect a receipt for my taxes....but I don't. I could skip the pre-tax 401k contributions and save via my post-tax IRA....but I don't.

Seems awfully hypocritical, does it not? I think the people that realize "we" need to pay more taxes assume it is "you" that will do the paying...not "me".