Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: Romney Talks of Ending Some Tax Deductions for Wealthy

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784

    Romney Talks of Ending Some Tax Deductions for Wealthy

    [URL="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/romney-talks-of-curtailing-specific-tax-deductions/"]http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/romney-talks-of-curtailing-specific-tax-deductions/[/URL]


    [QUOTE]

    Mitt Romney inadvertently offered a public preview of some of his economic plans on Sunday, revealing to high-dollar donors at a private fund-raising event that he wants to eliminate tax deductions for wealthy people who own second homes.

    Mr. Romney’s comments were overheard by reporters standing outside the event on a sidewalk and first reported by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News. During the event, Mr. Romney also told the donors that he might eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development and reduce the size of the Education Department.

    Mr. Romney told the donors that the housing agency “might not be around later” and said the Education Department would be “a heck of a lot smaller” even if it wasn’t eliminated altogether, The Journal reported.

    “I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Mr. Romney said, according to NBC. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”

    The overheard comments offer a first glimpse of the kind of specific policies that Mr. Romney might pursue as president. Publicly, Mr. Romney has hinted that he would limit deductions for wealthy homeowners, but has not said how he might do that. And in his remarks Sunday, he also hinted that he might curtail deductions for state and property taxes for the wealthy.

    And Mr. Romney has resisted offering many details about the cuts to government spending that would allow him to achieve the kind of deficit reductions he has projected considering the cuts in taxes that he has talked about.

    Officials with the Republican campaign said Mr. Romney was just tossing out ideas at the fund-raiser, not unveiling new policies. They accused Democrats of using the incident to try to distract attention from the economic situation under President Obama.

    “While President Obama is interested only in offering excuses and blaming others for his failures, Governor Romney is discussing some of the ideas he has to tackle the big issues facing America,” said Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney. “Governor Romney has also laid out a bold set of policy proposals that will grow our economy, cut spending and get our massive debt under control.”

    At the fundraiser, Mr Romney and his wife, Ann, offered candid and casual observations that did not appear intended for wider public consumption. Mr. Romney, instance, remarked that Fox News was watched by “true believers,” and that the party needed to broaden its appeal to women and independents, according to the NBC account. And Mrs. Romney said she “loved” the fallout generated when a Democratic political operative say that Mrs. Romney had “never worked a day in her life.”

    “It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment,” NBC quoted her as saying.

    Mr. Obama’s campaign quickly pounced on the remarks, describing Mr. Romney as willing to reveal his intentions only to well-connected donors, not to the public.

    “Apparently, Governor Romney believes only high-dollar donors have a right to know what programs he will cut,” wrote Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr. Obama’s campaign, in an e-mail to reporters. “Education. Housing. To pay for $5 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”

    Democrats have already been trying to convince voters that Mr. Romney is hiding things from voters. They point to the fact that Mr. Romney has not identified his “bundlers,” the handful of donors who gather up contributions from their wealthy friends. And they have criticized Mr. Romney for releasing only two years of tax returns.

    An e-mail Monday morning from Brad Woodhouse, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, was headlined: “In case you’re keeping count at home: Things Mitt Romney Hides.”

    To that list, Mr. Woodhouse added, “Now we learn policies he’d pursue as president (unless you’re a high-dollar donor, of course).”

    The Romney campaign quickly sought to play down the new proposals on Monday, suggesting that the candidate was simply bouncing around a few ideas with donors, not laying out new policy.

    During a Romney campaign conference call focused on President Obama’s tax proposals, former Senator James M. Talent of Missouri said Mr. Romney “was discussing ideas that came up at the meeting, which happens a lot when you are on the stump or doing interviews with the press.”

    When it became clear that questions from the news media about Mr. Romney’s remarks at the Florida fund-raiser would dominate the conference call, an aide to Mr. Romney ended the session after three questions.

    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Before I decide who to vote for I'd like the Mittster to tell me some of these plans.

  3. #3
    I'm not sure what agenda the OP had for posting this, but it certainly made me feel BETTER about voting for this guy in November . . .

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4442229]...but it certainly made me feel BETTER about voting for this guy in November . . .[/QUOTE]

    Me too. As a liberal, it makes me feel much BETTER... :P

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4442229]I'm not sure what agenda the OP had for posting this, but it certainly made me feel BETTER about voting for this guy in November . . .[/QUOTE]

    ummm...it is news

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4442227]Before I decide who to vote for I'd like the Mittster to tell me some of these plans.[/QUOTE]

    I'm happy he will cut some deductions for the wealthy. He also has stated that he will means test entitlements and reduce benefits for seniors that have high incomes in retirement over 200K.

    I'm happy that we have one candidate and party that is putting their plans on the table for people to vote on. It's difficult when you have a party in power that tries to maintain power by simply not putting a plan on the table. The budget debacle in the Senate last week proves the point. Obama is running on a scam Buffet Rule that does nothing to address the structural issues. They want to reveal their plans after the election. I wonder why.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4442233]Me too. As a liberal, it makes me feel much BETTER... :P[/QUOTE]

    Because you think they're liberal policies or because you think they're gonna make him lose in November?

  8. #8
    [IMG]http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-03/305412200-21120134.jpg[/IMG]

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4442975][IMG]http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-03/305412200-21120134.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    You are pulling out a line he used (no context) in 1994 and comparing it to the candidate in 2012?

    Wasn't Ron Paul publishing a hate filled newsletter back in 1994? Are you holding that against him?

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,094
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4442227]Before I decide who to vote for I'd like the Mittster to tell me some of these plans.[/QUOTE]

    You have to elect him so you find out what's in those plans.

    [IMG]http://waznmentobe.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Nanski-Pelosi-ugly-225x300.jpg[/IMG]

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4443088]You are pulling out a line he used (no context) in 1994 and comparing it to the candidate in 2012?

    Wasn't Ron Paul publishing a hate filled newsletter back in 1994? Are you holding that against him?[/QUOTE]

    Etch A Sketch

    [QUOTE]Asked whether Mr. Romney had moved too far to the right for the general election, Mr. Fehrnstrom said that the GOP hopeful would hit a reset button for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said. “You can kind of shake it up and restart it all over again.”[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    Romney repeated it last night on live radio interview.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Buster;4442236]ummm...it is news[/QUOTE]

    Yeah... but what are YOU doing posting it? It has nothing to do with Chris Christie.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4442906]

    I'm happy that we have one candidate and party that is putting their plans on the table for people to vote on.[/QUOTE]

    Putting their plans on what table? at a private fundraiser...Then claiming he's just bouncing some ideas around?

    How about letting us non donors in on some plans? :confused:

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4442906]I'm happy he will cut some deductions for the wealthy. He also has stated that he will means test entitlements and reduce benefits for seniors that have high incomes in retirement over 200K.

    I'm happy that we have one candidate and party that is putting their plans on the table for people to vote on. It's difficult when you have a party in power that tries to maintain power by simply not putting a plan on the table. The budget debacle in the Senate last week proves the point. Obama is running on a scam Buffet Rule that does nothing to address the structural issues. They want to reveal their plans after the election. I wonder why.[/QUOTE]


    This all means nothing unless BOTH parties are willing to compromise.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4442906]I'm happy he will cut some deductions for the wealthy. He also has stated that he will means test entitlements and reduce benefits for seniors that have high incomes in retirement over 200K.

    I'm happy that we have one candidate and party that is putting their plans on the table for people to vote on. It's difficult when you have a party in power that tries to maintain power by simply not putting a plan on the table. The budget debacle in the Senate last week proves the point. Obama is running on a scam Buffet Rule that does nothing to address the structural issues. They want to reveal their plans after the election. I wonder why.[/QUOTE]


    Just a point here on those rich dogs.
    I am one of those in that target group. Not yet on SS or Medicare BUT the minute I am later this year, 85% of my SS benefits are taxed at my MAXIMUM tax rate. Some wil NOT have their SS taxed at all. Also re Medicare, my monthly payment will be more than lower income people. I will, of course, have a supplement so that overall my out of pocket will be limited. My overall taxes are higher in total and as a percentage. My cost of Medicare is higher. How much do people want? Let's not forget: I and other EARNED what we have.
    Minor adjustments are fine. How about some taxes on the 48% or so paying zip.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4443475]Putting their plans on what table? at a private fundraiser...Then claiming he's just bouncing some ideas around?

    How about letting us non donors in on some plans? :confused:[/QUOTE]

    So you missed it when Paul Ryan actually passed a budget which included a 10 year blueprint for balancing the budget and reforming entitlements? Or did you miss it when (D) Connors in the Senate has a press conference last Tuesday that he would be bringing a budget to a vote in the Senate, then on Thursday under tremendous pressure from Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats he changed his mind?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4443815]Just a point here on those rich dogs.
    I am one of those in that target group. Not yet on SS or Medicare BUT the minute I am later this year, 85% of my SS benefits are taxed at my MAXIMUM tax rate. Some wil NOT have their SS taxed at all. Also re Medicare, my monthly payment will be more than lower income people. I will, of course, have a supplement so that overall my out of pocket will be limited. My overall taxes are higher in total and as a percentage. My cost of Medicare is higher. How much do people want? Let's not forget: I and other EARNED what we have.
    Minor adjustments are fine. How about some taxes on the 48% or so paying zip.[/QUOTE]

    I hate to say it but if you are retired and earning salary in retirement over 200K you shouldn't get the same benefits as someone that is retired with no income. In a perfect world these programs would have been lockbox programs but in reality they are not. Politicians broke their promises as they always do. I would be for raising the retirement ages for all younger workers including myself. I would also favor means testing for retiree benefits. Romney, Ryan and Simpson Bowles all agree on these points. The reality is that there is no other way to fix this thing.

    I don't personally have a problem with the income tax code as it is today. I would like to keep things as they are. I prefer the progressive tax code. The issue for me is that those folks not only don't pay taxes but they take more and more services from the government. Liberals in government work hard to define poverty at higher and higher levels capturing more and more people in the net. Thats why we have almost 150 million americans today on some form of government assistance. That is a staggering number. When almost half of the people in a country are on govt assistance we are headed on a path of decline.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Buster;4443529]This all means nothing unless BOTH parties are willing to compromise.[/QUOTE]

    Here is how government is supposed to work. The House passes a budget, sends it to the Senate. The Senate then takes up the bill and makes their amendments. Back and fourth until there is an agreement.

    So far we have the following the past two years in a row. House passes a budget with bipartisan support. They send the bill to the Senate. Harry Reid tables the bill and does not allow debate or a vote. End of story.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4443878]So you missed it when Paul Ryan actually passed a budget which included a 10 year blueprint for balancing the budget and reforming entitlements? Or did you miss it when (D) Connors in the Senate has a press conference last Tuesday that he would be bringing a budget to a vote in the Senate, then on Thursday under tremendous pressure from Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats he changed his mind?[/QUOTE]

    These weren't covered in Mad Magazine, so he missed them.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us