How will Mitt Romney Save America ?

One curious thing to note in the returns -- Romney *intentionally* understated his legitimate church deductions by something like $2M -- so that his tax rate would hit 14%. If he had taken the full amount of deductions, his rate would have been below 10% -- but since, during the run up to his nomination he stated the return would show 14%, he was 'compelled' to understate the deduction in order to make the numbers fit his statement.

Note, should Romney not win the election, he can always file an amended return...

And yes, Reid was full of it in tossing lying stones at his fellow church member. These LDS folks ought to be civil and truthful when dealing with one another.

Middle of the road is someone who has voted for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates across their voting history, in nearly equal numbers, and I would be willing to be that, as I have done just that, I am a very small minority here.

Skil, a few things -- first, nearly all Romney's income is in dividends and capital gains. Under the Bushcut rules of 2001 that really maxes out at 15%. So it is quite easy for the Mitt's rate to be that low. It is the same for just about everyone making millions a year. (Not true for movie stars or sports stars unless they have very creating accounting schemes).

There was a time when dividend income was not given a favored rate -- pre-Bush.

If the Democrats and Teapublicans remain intransigent -- that higher rate will be in effect on January 1. The Bushcuts end, absent congressional action, at the end of this year. That's part of the 'fiscal cliff' the press is yammering about (the other large component is squestration which imposes across the board cuts of about 9% in the budget (aside from things such as Medicare and Social Security) INCLUDING the Teapublican sacrosanct defense budget.

Sarge, I have and will vote for Republicans. I have not and will not vote for Teapublicans.

I have voted for republicans before. I've not seen any recently that aren't predecided on their opinions, I tend to default against such characters
____________
Proud member of TSWB.

End terrorism by building a school

Middle of the road is someone who has voted for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates across their voting history, in nearly equal numbers, and I would be willing to be that, as I have done just that, I am a very small minority here.

Reid aside I still want to see how a multimillionaire can have virtually the same tax rate as I do.

Guy the Goof or whatever he goes by these days asked what part of the tax code I'd change to end loopholes. I'd examine Nitt's Filings and eliminate anything he used.

Guy, a big part of it is called shared sacrifice. Have you ever been on a team either in sports or business?
____________

Guy, a 45% tax on the upper edge (say at $1M and up won't do it -- I think that's too high a rate anyway). Taxing dividends as regular income would be what I'd go after first (again above a certain income level).

But raising revenues in conjunction with budget cuts is what is needed. You can't get there with revenue increases along, and you can't cut the budget to get to balance without new revenues.

As I noted earlier (likely missed in all the chaff), the current Fed spending is something like 24% of GDP, Current Fed revenues are 16%. 11 years ago, the numbers were 20% for each. I think that can be achieved only if there is a bipartisan sense of governance. Go after a long term 20% decrease on the spending side (that is down to 19% to 20% of GDP -- as GDP grows the amount of the budget can grow). Get revenues up to historic rates (20% of GDP). That can be done -- but not if (like the Democrats push for) the only revenue moves are directed at the wealthy (ie those making more than $250K a year). If you revert dividend income to 'regular' income status that will help as well. But somewhere in the mix, the middle class and dare I say it, some of that '47%' will be tapped for taxes as well.

Barry, shame on you, trying to logical or pragmatic does not seem to be part of today's politics.
____________

Barry, shame on you, trying to logical or pragmatic does not seem to be part of today's politics.

LOL I guess I must be middle of the road then, I pretty much voted R until my early 40's then I gravitated to mostly D the last 25 years or so.
____________

LOL I guess I must be middle of the road then, I pretty much voted R until my early 40's then I gravitated to mostly D the last 25 years or so.
____________

If you are not Democratic when you are young you have no heart. If you are not Republican when you are older you have no brain.

You are a candidate for the wizard of OZ. Maybe you should change your name to OZfan, Er perhaps OZfan2

William, I guess the Republicans moved away from me with the religious right and Reagan. I am inflexible on separating church from the state.
You are correct, being that way is not the way to get ahead in our current society.
A wise person once told me "There are only two things which can not be taken from you. "Your education and your integrity."
____________

Sadly -- so true. The thing is, folks are looking for budget realism. From what I've seen the Democrats are slightly -- but only slightly -- more realistic -- at least they *talk* about budget cuts along with the revenue increases. The Teapublicans seem to be Norquistified regarding tax increases of any sort.

Barry, shame on you, trying to logical or pragmatic does not seem to be part of today's politics.

Romney doesn't have to save America, he just has to not give it away. No President can "save" America but an inept President can contribute to it's downfall.
____________
Bob DeWoody

Bob, from the campaign that Mitt has run, I think that he has demonstrated he has the inept thing well in hand.